Popular Posts Today

Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.

Can post-breakup Facebook surveillance delay emotional recovery?

Written By empapat on Rabu, 19 September 2012 | 20.25

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — More than 900 million people worldwide are active users of the social networking site Facebook, and it is estimated that as many as one-third report using Facebook to check on the activities of former romantic partners. The effects of remaining Facebook friends with an ex-lover or even just following their activities online can disrupt a person's ability to heal emotionally and move on with his or her life, according to an article in Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking.

The study entitled "Facebook Surveillance of Former Romantic Partners: Associations with PostBreakup Recovery and Personal Growth" assessed the effects of continued Facebook contact with an ex-partner and of Facebook surveillance, in which there is no actual online contact, but one individual monitors the Facebook page and postings of another.

The study collected data from 464 participants to evaluate their Facebook usage and their emotional recovery and personal adjustment following the breakup of a romantic relationship. It evaluated parameters such as negative feelings, sexual desire and emotional longing for the ex-partner, and feelings of reduced personal growth as measures of distress and the ability to move forward with their lives.

"This study sees again virtual life mirroring real life. Just as real life contact with ex-partners may inhibit growth, healing, and well-being, so may virtual contact," says Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, MBA, BCIA, Editor-in-Chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, from the Interactive Media Institute, San Diego, CA.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Publishers, via AlphaGalileo.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. Tara C. Marshall. Facebook Surveillance of Former Romantic Partners: Associations with PostBreakup Recovery and Personal Growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2012; : 120904061317006 DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0125

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/davdcB4DiaI/120919124941.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
20.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Clenching left hand could help athletes avoid choking under pressure

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Some athletes may improve their performance under pressure simply by squeezing a ball or clenching their left hand before competition to activate certain parts of the brain, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

In three experiments with experienced soccer players, judo experts and badminton players, researchers in Germany tested the athletes' skills during practice and then in stressful competitions before a large crowd or video camera. Right-handed athletes who squeezed a ball in their left hand before competing were less likely to choke under pressure than right-handed players who squeezed a ball in their right hand. The study was published online in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

For skilled athletes, many movements, such as kicking a soccer ball or completing a judo kick, become automatic with little conscious thought. When athletes under pressure don't perform well, they may be focusing too much on their own movements rather than relying on their motor skills developed through years of practice, said lead researcher Juergen Beckmann, PhD, chair of sport psychology at the Technical University of Munich in Germany.

"Rumination can interfere with concentration and performance of motor tasks. Athletes usually perform better when they trust their bodies rather than thinking too much about their own actions or what their coaches told them during practice," Beckmann said. "While it may seem counterintuitive, consciously trying to keep one's balance is likely to produce imbalance, as was seen in some sub-par performances by gymnasts during the Olympics in London."

Previous research has shown that rumination is associated with the brain's left hemisphere, while the right hemisphere is associated with superior performance in automated behaviors, such as those used by some athletes, the study notes. The right hemisphere controls movements of the left side of the body, and the left hemisphere controls the right side. The researchers theorized that squeezing a ball or clenching the left hand would activate the right hemisphere of the brain and reduce the likelihood of the athlete's choking under pressure. The study focused exclusively on right-handed athletes because some relationships between different parts of the brain aren't as well understood for left-handed people, according to the authors.

The research could have important implications outside athletics. Elderly people who are afraid of falling often focus too much on their movements, so right-handed elderly people may be able to improve their balance by clenching their left hand before walking or climbing stairs, Beckmann said.

"Many movements of the body can be impaired by attempts at consciously controlling them," he said. "This technique can be helpful for many situations and tasks."

In the first experiment, 30 semi-professional male soccer players took six penalty shots during a practice session. The next day, they attempted to make the same penalty shots in an auditorium packed with more than 300 university students waiting to see a televised soccer match between Germany and Austria. The players who squeezed a ball with their left hand performed as well under pressure as during practice, while players who squeezed a ball in their right hand missed more shots in the crowded auditorium.

Twenty judo experts (14 men and six women) took part in the second experiment. First, they performed a series of judo kicks into a sandbag during practice. During a second session, they were told that their kicks would be videotaped and evaluated by their coaches. The judo athletes who squeezed a ball with their left hand not only didn't choke under pressure, they performed better overall during the stressful competition than during practice, while those in the control group choked under pressure, the study found.

The final experiment featured 18 experienced badminton players (12 men and six women) who completed a series of practice serves. Then, they were divided into teams and competed against each other while being videotaped for evaluation by their coaches. Athletes who squeezed a ball in their left hand didn't choke under pressure, unlike the control group players who squeezed a ball in their right hand. A final phase of the experiment had the athletes just clench their left or right hand without a ball before competition, and players who clenched their left hand performed better than players who squeezed their right hand.

The ball-squeezing technique probably wouldn't help athletes whose performance is based on strength or stamina, such as weightlifters or marathon runners, the authors noted. The effects apply to athletes whose performance is based on accuracy and complex body movements, such as soccer players or golfers, they said.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by American Psychological Association (APA), via Newswise.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. Jürgen Beckmann, Peter Gröpel, Felix Ehrlenspiel. Preventing Motor Skill Failure Through Hemisphere-Specific Priming: Cases From Choking Under Pressure.. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2012; DOI: 10.1037/a0029852

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/SFepY27Hj44/120919124900.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
20.25 | 0 komentar | Read More

Weight gain worry for stressed black girls

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Could the impact of chronic stress explain why American black girls are more likely to be overweight than white girls? According to Dr. Tomiyama of the University of California, Los Angeles in the U.S., and her colleagues, higher levels of stress over 10 years predict greater increases in body weight over time in both black and white girls. However, the experience of chronic stress appears to have a greater negative effect on black girls' weight, which may explain racial disparities in obesity levels.

The work is published online in Springer's journal, Annals of Behavioral Medicine.

In the United States, the prevalence of obesity in black populations is 50 percent higher than in whites. This difference is apparent even in childhood, and particularly in female adolescents. In addition, ethnic minorities tend to experience greater psychological stress than whites due, in part, to perceived racial discrimination.

Tomiyama and team looked at whether the experience of chronic stress in young girls over a 10-year period might have an effect on Body Mass Index (BMI), a measure of obesity. They were also interested in whether this effect might be different in white and black teenage girls.

Using data from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's (NHLBI) Growth and Health Study, the researchers assessed the prevalence of obesity in 2,379 black and white girls beginning at age 10 and followed up for 10 years. They also looked at their experience of psychological stress over that time.

Over 10 years, more black girls were overweight or obese than white girls, who reported more stress than black girls. In addition, levels of chronic stress predicted greater weight in both groups. Even though black girls reported less stress overall, the effect of chronic stress on weight was stronger for these girls with one unit increase in stress leading to 0.8 BMI unit increase every two years. Comparatively, one unit of stress led to 0.55 BMI unit increase in white girls.

The authors conclude: "Our study documents a relationship between chronic perceived stress and BMI over a decade of growth in black and white girls. However, the relationship between perceived stress and BMI is stronger in black girls. Psychological stress may lead to weight gain through behavioral pathways, such as increased food consumption and sedentary lifestyles, but also directly through prolonged exposure to biological stress mediators such as cortisol."

Given how ubiquitous stress is, these findings raise the flag that stress may be playing a major role in the obesity epidemic as well as contributing to racial disparities.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Springer Science+Business Media, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. A. Janet Tomiyama, Eli Puterman, Elissa S. Epel, David H. Rehkopf, Barbara A. Laraia. Chronic Psychological Stress and Racial Disparities in Body Mass Index Change Between Black and White Girls Aged 10–19. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2012; DOI: 10.1007/s12160-012-9398-x

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/ECX83vf5riE/120919125734.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
19.26 | 0 komentar | Read More

Many parents believe that letting young children taste alcohol discourages later use

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — One in four mothers believe that letting young children taste alcohol may discourage them from drinking in adolescence and 40 percent believe that not allowing children to taste alcohol will only make it more appealing, according to a new study by RTI International and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, explored whether parents purposefully introduce children to alcohol at a young age and, if so, why. It also examined parenting practices that impact children's opportunity to try alcohol.

"The idea that early exposure to alcohol can discourage a child's interest in drinking has a strong foothold among some parents of elementary school aged children," said Christine Jackson, Ph.D., a social ecologist at RTI International and the study's lead author.

The study is based on data collected from interviews with 1,050 mothers and their third-grade children. The participants were recruited for a four-year intervention trial that will examine the long-term implications of children's early sipping experience.

Adult participants in the study were asked about their alcohol-specific attitudes and practices as well as their opinions on providing tastes of alcohol to their children.

At least a quarter of the mothers said allowing their children to taste alcohol would discourage their curiosity in it because they would not like the flavor and because it will remove the "forbidden fruit" appeal of it. Forty percent of the mothers interviewed felt that not allowing children to have alcohol would only increase their desire to have it.

Twenty-two percent of the mothers believed that children who taste alcohol at home with their parents would be better at resisting alcohol-related peer pressure, and 26 percent thought it would make them less likely to experiment with risky drinking in middle school.

"These findings indicate that many parents mistakenly expect that the way children drink at home, under parental supervision, will be replicated when children are with peers," Jackson said. "More research is needed to understand how parents acquire these ideas and to understand the relationship between early sipping and alcohol use in adolescence."

The children who participated in the study were asked whether they had tasted beer, wine or other drinks containing alcohol and whether their parents had ever given them a sip of alcohol. Nearly 33 percent of the children participating in the study reported having tasted beer, wine or other alcohol.

The researchers found a strong association between parents who were in favor of allowing their children to taste alcohol and children's reported alcohol use. According to the study, this finding is noteworthy because early introduction to alcohol is a primary risk factor for problem drinking during adolescence.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by RTI International.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. Jackson C, Ennett ST, Dickinson DM. Letting Children Sip: Understanding Why Parents Allow Alcohol Use by Elementary School–aged Children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2012; DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1198

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/YXyZXZELc9w/120919142010.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
17.58 | 0 komentar | Read More

Yogurt consumption, blood pressure, and incident hypertension

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Adding more yogurt to your diet without increasing the number of calories you eat may help lower your risk of high blood pressure, according to new research presented at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research 2012 Scientific Sessions.

A recent study found long-term yogurt-eaters were less likely to develop high blood pressure and on average had lower systolic blood pressure than those who didn't eat yogurt. Systolic blood pressure is the top number in a blood pressure reading. It measures the force of blood against the walls of your arteries when your heart is beating.

During the 15 year study, researchers followed more than 2,000 volunteers who did not have high blood pressure at the start of the study. Yogurt consumption was measured by questionnaires filled out by the volunteers at three intervals over the study period. Study participants were 31 percent less likely to develop high blood pressure if at least 2 percent of their daily calories came from yogurt, which would be like eating at least one six-ounce cup of low-fat yogurt every three days. In addition, their systolic blood pressure increased less than that of people who didn't eat yogurt.

The study was funded by the Framingham Heart Study of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health and by a research grant from the Dannon Company, Inc.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by American Heart Association.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/mJMmGBSd0kY/120919190600.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
17.24 | 0 komentar | Read More

Sesame and rice bran oil lowers blood pressure, improves cholesterol

ScienceDaily (Sep. 18, 2012) — People who cooked with a blend of sesame and rice bran oils saw a significant drop in blood pressure and improved cholesterol levels, according to new research presented at the American Heart Association's High Blood Pressure Research 2012 Scientific Sessions.

The researchers found cooking with a combination of these oils in a variety of ways worked nearly as well as a commonly prescribed high blood pressure medication, and that the use of the oil blend with medication yielded even more impressive results.

"Rice bran oil, like sesame oil, is low in saturated fat and appears to improve a patient's cholesterol profile," said Devarajan Sankar, M.D, Ph.D., a research scientist in the Department of Cardiovascular Disease at Fukuoka University Chikushi Hospital in Chikushino, Japan. "Additionally, it may reduce heart disease risk in other ways, including being a substitute for less healthy oils and fats in the diet."

The 60-day study in New Delhi, India, divided 300 people with mild to moderately high blood pressure into three groups. One group was treated with a commonly used blood pressure lowering medication called a calcium-channel blocker (nifedipine). The second group was given the oil blend and told to use about an ounce each day in their meals.

The final group received the calcium channel blocker and the oil blend.

All three groups, with approximately an equal number of men and women, average age of 57, saw drops in their systolic blood pressure. Systolic blood pressure is the top number in a blood pressure reading and measures the force of blood against your artery walls when the heart is pumping.

Systolic blood pressure dropped an average of 14 points for those using only the oil blend and 16 points for those taking medication. Those using both saw a 36-point drop.

Diastolic blood pressure also dropped significantly: 11 points for those eating the oil, 12 for those on medication and 24 for those using both. Diastolic blood pressure is the bottom number in a blood pressure reading that measures the force of blood against your artery walls when your heart is at rest between beats.

As for cholesterol, those using the oils saw a 26 percent drop in their LDL ("bad" cholesterol) and a 9.5 percent increase in the HDL ("good" cholesterol), while no changes in cholesterol were observed for the patients who used only the calcium-channel blocker. Those who took the calcium channel blocker and the oils had a 27 percent drop in LDL levels and a 10.9 percent increase in the HDL.

Healthier fatty acids and antioxidants, such as sesamin, sesamol, sesamolin and oryzanol, in the oil blends may be responsible for the results, Sankar said. These antioxidants, mono and poly unsaturated oils are compounds found in plants and have been linked with lower blood pressure and total cholesterol in earlier studies.

Additional studies are needed to determine if the oil blend is as beneficial as it seems. The combination was made specifically for this study, and there are no plans to market it commercially, Sankar said. Blending these oils yourself would not necessarily produce these effects.

People with high blood pressure should not stop taking their medications and should speak with their doctors before trying any product that might change their blood pressure to ensure they're being properly monitored.

Co-authors are.Ravinder Singh, M.B.B.S., and Biprabuddha Chatterjee, M.Sc.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by American Heart Association.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/YlwFL8DVvuE/120919190151.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
17.24 | 0 komentar | Read More

Misinformation: Why it sticks and how to fix it

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Childhood vaccines do not cause autism. Barack Obama was born in the United States. Global warming is confirmed by science. And yet, many people believe claims to the contrary.

Why does that kind of misinformation stick? A new report published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, explores this phenomenon. Psychological scientist Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Western Australia and colleagues highlight the cognitive factors that make certain pieces of misinformation so "sticky" and identify some techniques that may be effective in debunking or counteracting erroneous beliefs.

The main reason that misinformation is sticky, according to the researchers, is that rejecting information actually requires cognitive effort. Weighing the plausibility and the source of a message is cognitively more difficult than simply accepting that the message is true -- it requires additional motivational and cognitive resources. If the topic isn't very important to you or you have other things on your mind, misinformation is more likely to take hold.

And when we do take the time to thoughtfully evaluate incoming information, there are only a few features that we are likely to pay attention to: Does the information fit with other things I believe in? Does it make a coherent story with what I already know? Does it come from a credible source? Do others believe it?

Misinformation is especially sticky when it conforms to our preexisting political, religious, or social point of view. Because of this, ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to overcome.

Even worse, efforts to retract misinformation often backfire, paradoxically amplifying the effect of the erroneous belief.

"This persistence of misinformation has fairly alarming implications in a democracy because people may base decisions on information that, at some level, they know to be false," says Lewandowsky.

"At an individual level, misinformation about health issues -- for example, unwarranted fears regarding vaccinations or unwarranted trust in alternative medicine -- can do a lot of damage. At a societal level, persistent misinformation about political issues (e.g., Obama's health care reform) can create considerable harm. On a global scale, misinformation about climate change is currently delaying mitigative action."

Though misinformation may be difficult to correct, all is not lost. According to Lewandowsky, "psychological science has the potential to counteract all those harms by educating people and communicators about the power of misinformation and how to meet it."

In their report, Lewandowsky and colleagues offer some strategies for setting the record straight.

  • Provide people with a narrative that replaces the gap left by false information
  • Focus on the facts you want to highlight, rather than the myths
  • Make sure that the information you want people to take away is simple and brief
  • Consider your audience and the beliefs they are likely to hold
  • Strengthen your message through repetition

Research has shown that attempts at "debiasing" can be effective in the real world when based on these evidence-based strategies.

The report, "Misinformation and its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing," is published in the September issue of Psychological Science in the Public Interest and is written by Stephan Lewandowsky and Ullrich Ecker of the University of Western Australia, Colleen Seifert and Norbert Schwarz of the University of Michigan, and John Cook of the University of Queensland and the University of Western Australia.

The report also features a commentary written by Edward Maibach of George Mason University.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Association for Psychological Science.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. S. Lewandowsky, U. K. H. Ecker, C. M. Seifert, N. Schwarz, J. Cook. Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2012; 13 (3): 106 DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/YOHIorEP93o/120919191212.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
17.24 | 0 komentar | Read More

Reading food labels helps shoppers stay thinner

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Shoppers -- particularly women -- who take the time to read food labels are thinner than those who don't.

These findings are from a recently released study authored by Steven T. Yen, a University of Tennessee professor in the Institute of Agriculture's Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, in conjunction with researchers at the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain, the University of Arkansas and the Norwegian Institute for Agricultural Finance Research.

Women who read food labels weighed nearly 9 pounds less than women who didn't read labels, according to the study. It also found that women read labels more than men, and the smoking population paid even less attention to label information.

"Reading food labels is important because it allows shoppers to improve diet quality by making more informed decisions in food purchases," Yen said.

The researchers used data from the annual "National Health Interview Survey" that was conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The survey collected more than 25,000 observations on health, eating and shopping habits.

The study, which was published in the "Agricultural Economics" journal, examined the relationship between nutritional label use and obesity. The results showed that reading labels played a role in reducing obesity, especially among women.

"These findings imply that health education campaigns can employ nutritional labels as one of the instruments for reducing obesity," the report states.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Tennessee.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. Maria L. Loureiro, Steven T. Yen, Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr. The effects of nutritional labels on obesity. Agricultural Economics, 2012; 43 (3): 333 DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-0862.2012.00586.x

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/z6plCqVEIs4/120919142012.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
16.57 | 0 komentar | Read More

The more people rely on their intuitions, the more cooperative they become

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — It's an age old question: Why do we do good? What makes people sometimes willing to put "We" ahead of "Me?" Perhaps our first impulse is to be selfish, and cooperation is all about reining in greed. Or maybe cooperation happens spontaneously, and too much thinking gets in the way.

Harvard scientists are getting closer to an answer, showing that people's first response is to cooperate and that stopping to think encourages selfishness.

David Rand, a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Psychology, Joshua Greene, the John and Ruth Hazel Associate Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Psychology, and Martin Nowak, Professor of Mathematics and of Biology, and Director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, have published their findings in the September 20 issue of Nature. They recruited thousands of participants to play a "public goods game" in which it's "Me" vs. "Us." Subjects were put into small groups and faced with a choice: Keep the money you've been given, or contribute it into a common pool that grows and benefits the whole group. Hold onto the money and you come out ahead, but the group does best when everyone contributes.

The researchers wanted to know whether people's first impulse is cooperative or selfish. To find out, they started by looking at how quickly different people made their choices, and found that faster deciders were more likely to contribute to the common good.

Next they forced people to go fast or to stop and think, and found the same thing: Faster deciders tended to be more cooperative, and the people who had to stop and think gave less.

Finally, the researchers tested their hypothesis by manipulating people's mindsets. They asked some people to think about the benefits of intuition before choosing how much to contribute. Others were asked to think about the virtues of careful reasoning. Once again, intuition promoted cooperation, and deliberation did the opposite.

While some might interpret the results as suggesting that cooperation is "innate" or "hard-wired," if anything they highlight the role of experience. People who had better opinions of those around them in everyday life showed more cooperative impulses in these experiments, and previous experience with these kinds of studies eroded those impulses.

"In daily life, it's generally in your interest to be cooperative," Rand said. "So we internalize cooperation as the right way to behave. Then when we come into unusual environments, where incentives like reputation and sanctions are removed, our first response is to keep behaving the way we do in normal life. When we think about it, however, we realize that this is one of those rare situations where we can be selfish and get away with it."

Unlike many psychology studies, which use small numbers of college students, these experiments tested thousands of people from around the world using Amazon Mechanical Turk, an online labor market that's becoming an increasingly popular tool for social science research.

According to Rand, the findings highlight an interesting and counterintuitive truth -- that careful thought and reflection have a dark side. But is reflection always bad?

"When it's 'Me' vs. 'Us,' our intuitions seem to work well. That's what's going on here," explains Joshua Greene. "But what happens when people have different moral intuitions, for example, about abortion or raising taxes? When intuitions clash -- when it's the values of 'Us' vs. 'Them' -- reasoning and reflection may be our best hope for reconciling our differences."

"Over millions of years we've evolved the capacity for cooperation," explains Martin Nowak. "These psychological experiments examine the causes of cooperation on a shorter timescale, on the order of seconds. Both perspectives are essential as we face global problems which require cooperation on a massive scale. We need to understand where cooperation comes from historically and how best to make it happen here and now."

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Harvard University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. David G. Rand, Joshua D. Greene, Martin A. Nowak. Spontaneous giving and calculated greed. Nature, 2012; 489 (7416): 427 DOI: 10.1038/nature11467

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/sQyIezy4Wss/120919142144.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
12.16 | 0 komentar | Read More

Your memory is like the telephone game, altered with each retelling

ScienceDaily (Sep. 19, 2012) — Remember the telephone game where people take turns whispering a message into the ear of the next person in line? By the time the last person speaks it out loud, the message has radically changed. It's been altered with each retelling.

Turns out your memory is a lot like the telephone game, according to a new Northwestern Medicine study.

Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. The Northwestern study is the first to show this.

"A memory is not simply an image produced by time traveling back to the original event -- it can be an image that is somewhat distorted because of the prior times you remembered it," said Donna Bridge, a postdoctoral fellow at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and lead author of the paper on the study recently published in the Journal of Neuroscience. "Your memory of an event can grow less precise even to the point of being totally false with each retrieval."

Bridge did the research while she was a doctoral student in lab of Ken Paller, a professor of psychology at Northwestern in the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences.

The findings have implications for witnesses giving testimony in criminal trials, Bridge noted.

"Maybe a witness remembers something fairly accurately the first time because his memories aren't that distorted," she said. "After that it keeps going downhill."

The published study reports on Bridge's work with 12 participants, but she has run several variations of the study with a total of 70 people. "Every single person has shown this effect," she said. "It's really huge."

"When someone tells me they are sure they remember exactly the way something happened, I just laugh," Bridge said.

The reason for the distortion, Bridge said, is the fact that human memories are always adapting.

"Memories aren't static," she noted. "If you remember something in the context of a new environment and time, or if you are even in a different mood, your memories might integrate the new information."

For the study, people were asked to recall the location of objects on a grid in three sessions over three consecutive days. On the first day during a two-hour session, participants learned a series of 180 unique object-location associations on a computer screen. The next day in session two, participants were given a recall test in which they viewed a subset of those objects individually in a central location on the grid and were asked to move them to their original location. Then the following day in session three, participants returned for a final recall test.

The results showed improved recall accuracy on the final test for objects that were tested on day two compared to those not tested on day two. However, people never recalled exactly the right location. Most importantly, in session three they tended to place the object closer to the incorrect location they recalled during day two rather than the correct location from day one.

"Our findings show that incorrect recollection of the object's location on day two influenced how people remembered the object's location on day three," Bridge explained. "Retrieving the memory didn't simply reinforce the original association. Rather, it altered memory storage to reinforce the location that was recalled at session two."

Bridge's findings also were supported when she measured participants' neural signals --the electrical activity of the brain -- during session two. She wanted to see if the neural signals during session two predicted anything about how people remembered the object's location during session three.

The results revealed a particular electrical signal when people were recalling an object location during session two. This signal was greater when -- the next day -- the object was placed close to that location recalled during session two. When the electrical signal was weaker, recall of the object location was likely to be less distorted.

"The strong signal seems to indicate that a new memory was being laid down," Bridge said, "and the new memory caused a bias to make the same mistake again."

"This study shows how memories normally change over time, sometimes becoming distorted," Paller noted. "When you think back to an event that happened to you long ago -- say your first day at school -- you actually may be recalling information you retrieved about that event at some later time, not the original event."

The research was supported by National Science Foundation grant BCS1025697 and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke of the National Institutes of Health grant T32 NS047987.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Northwestern University. The original article was written by Marla Paul.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. D. J. Bridge, K. A. Paller. Neural Correlates of Reactivation and Retrieval-Induced Distortion. Journal of Neuroscience, 2012; 32 (35): 12144 DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1378-12.2012

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

20 Sep, 2012


-
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/OALb1Y9nFG4/120919125736.htm
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com
11.14 | 0 komentar | Read More
Techie Blogger