tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/psychology-research-19332/articlesPsychology research – The Conversation2024-03-20T12:21:29Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2259842024-03-20T12:21:29Z2024-03-20T12:21:29ZChilling out rather than blowing off steam is a better way to manage anger − new review of 154 studies reveals what works<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582857/original/file-20240319-24-dmg9md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=117%2C109%2C4482%2C3242&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Activities that keep you fired up don't help you turn down your anger.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/man-punching-punch-bag-and-stuffing-exploding-from-royalty-free-image/200188191-001">Ray Massey/The Image Bank via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Some commonly recommended tactics for managing anger, including hitting a punching bag, jogging and cycling, aren’t effective at helping people cool off. That’s the key takeaway of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102414">our new review of 154 studies</a> that looked at how activities that increase versus decrease physiological arousal affect anger and aggression.</p>
<p>Arousal is how <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bAaINTIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">researchers</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LUrHrxcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">like us</a> describe how alert and energized someone is. When you’re <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-44948-000">in a state of high physiological arousal</a>, you’ll have increased heart rate, blood pressure, breathing rate and skin conductance due to sweat gland activity. Anger is a negative emotion associated with high physiological arousal. </p>
<p>In our study, we found that activities that influence arousal levels had a profound impact on anger and aggression.</p>
<p>By engaging in <a href="https://www.springerpub.com/relaxation-meditation-mindfulness-9780826127457.html">activities that decrease arousal</a>, such as deep breathing, muscle relaxation, yoga, meditation and mindfulness, you can control, or “turn down,” your angry feelings and aggressive impulses. </p>
<p>Crucially, our meta-analysis of participants from multiple studies found that activities that help decrease arousal worked across diverse settings, including in the laboratory and in real-world situations, both offline and online, and in both group and individual sessions.</p>
<p>In addition, activities that turn down arousal were effective for a wide variety of people – students and nonstudents, criminal offenders and nonoffenders, those with and without disabilities, and for participants of various genders, races, ages and countries.</p>
<p>In contrast, some activities people use to manage their anger amp up arousal and increase anger and aggression levels. Jogging, a popular stress-relief activity, actually increased anger in the studies we looked at. The repetitive nature of jogging may induce feelings of monotony and frustration, potentially exacerbating anger rather than alleviating it. Conversely, engaging in ball sports and physical education classes decreased anger, possibly because they are playful group activities that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394260607.ch8">evoke positive emotions</a>.</p>
<p>Likewise, venting anger increased anger and aggression. This research helps dispel the myth that it is good to blow off steam and “let it out” or “get it off your chest.” Skip screaming into your pillow or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289002">pounding on a punching bag</a>. Save your money rather than going to a rage room to break stuff with baseball bats. Such activities are not therapeutic.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman with her eyes closed breathing calmly" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/582858/original/file-20240319-28-1mxzcd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Simple and free techniques such as deep breathing and mindfulness are effective, evidence-based strategies for reducing anger.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-with-eyes-closed-at-dusk-royalty-free-image/1442209829">Tim Robberts/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.gallup.com/analytics/349280/gallup-global-emotions-report.aspx">Anger is a common emotion</a> with potentially destructive consequences. From physical confrontations to road rage incidents, anger is widely seen as a problem and an emotion that people should try to rein in.</p>
<p>Yet, most people <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-97355-018">do not have effective techniques for controlling</a> their anger. There is a great need for identifying effective strategies for reducing and managing anger. Our study shows that activities that decrease arousal are highly effective. Many of these activities are also inexpensive or free. </p>
<p>In a world grappling with the dangers of unchecked anger, our research empowers people with evidence-based tools for effective anger management, fostering healthier outcomes and societal well-being. </p>
<h2>How we do our work</h2>
<p>Our study in the journal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102414">Clinical Psychology Review</a> was a <a href="https://www.russellsage.org/publications/handbook-research-synthesis-and-meta-analysis">meta-analytic review</a>. It combined data from 154 studies examining activities that either decrease or increase arousal and their impact on anger and aggression.</p>
<p>The conclusions from a meta-analysis are statistically stronger because of the large sample – in our case, 10,186 participants. A meta-analysis can also reveal patterns that are less obvious in any single study. By zooming out from a leaf, you get to see the full tree.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225984/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Activities such as deep breathing, muscle relaxation, yoga and meditation help people manage their anger, according to a meta-analysis of studies involving more than 10,000 participants.Sophie L. Kjaervik, Postdoctoral Fellow at The Injury and Violence Prevention Program, Virginia Commonwealth UniversityBrad Bushman, Professor of Communication, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2230092024-03-07T11:12:21Z2024-03-07T11:12:21ZOur brains take rhythmic snapshots of the world as we walk – and we never knew<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577820/original/file-20240226-16-psaujb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=52%2C9%2C3089%2C2123&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-hiking-mountains-adventure-exercising-legs-105847466">Blazej Lyjak/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For decades, psychology departments around the world have studied human behaviour in darkened laboratories that restrict natural movement.</p>
<p>Our new study, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45780-4">published today in Nature Communications</a>, challenges the wisdom of this approach. With the help of virtual reality (VR), we have revealed previously hidden aspects of perception that happen during a simple everyday action – walking. </p>
<p>We found the rhythmic movement of walking changes how sensitive we are to the surrounding environment. With every step we take, our perception cycles through “good” and “bad” phases. </p>
<p>This means your smooth, continuous experience of an afternoon stroll is deceptive. Instead, it’s as if your brain takes rhythmic snapshots of the world – and they are synchronised with the rhythm of your footfall.</p>
<h2>The next step in studies of human perception</h2>
<p>In psychology, the study of visual perception refers to how our brains use information from our eyes to create our experience of the world.</p>
<p>Typical psychology experiments that investigate visual perception involve darkened laboratory rooms where participants are asked to sit motionless in front of a computer screen.</p>
<p>Often, their heads will be fixed in position with a chin rest, and they will be asked to respond to any changes they might see on the screen. </p>
<p>This approach has been invaluable in building our knowledge of human perception, and the foundations of how our brains make sense of the world. But these scenarios are a far cry from how we experience the world every day.</p>
<p>This means we might not be able to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064523000830">generalise</a> the results we discover in these highly restricted settings to the real world. It would be a bit like trying to understand fish behaviour, but only by studying fish in an aquarium.</p>
<p>Instead, we went out on a limb. Motivated by the fact our brains have evolved to support action, we set out to test vision during walking – one of our most frequent and everyday behaviours.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A row of students in a uni computer lab looking at screens." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/579126/original/file-20240301-16-354ica.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Doing tests in a lab isn’t quite the same as seeing and interacting with things in the real world.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/side-view-students-using-computer-lab-122284963">sirtravelalot/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A walk in a (virtual) forest</h2>
<p>Our key innovation was to use a wireless VR environment to test vision continuously while walking. </p>
<p>Several previous studies have examined the effects of light exercise on perception, but used <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00202">treadmills</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01082">exercise bikes</a>. While these methods are better than sitting still, they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01380.2006">don’t match the ways</a> we naturally move through the world.</p>
<p>Instead, we simulated an open forest. Our participants were free to roam, yet unknown to them, we were carefully tracking their head movement with every step they took. </p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/917787370" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Participants walked in a virtual forest while trying to detect brief visual ‘flashes’ in the moving white circle.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We tracked head movement because as you walk, your head bobs up and down. Your head is lowest when both feet are on the ground and highest when swinging your leg in-between steps. We used these changes in head height to mark the phases of each participant’s “step-cycle”.</p>
<p>Participants also completed our visual task while they walked, which required looking for brief visual “flashes” they needed to detect as quickly as possible.</p>
<p>By aligning performance on our visual task to the phases of the step-cycle, we found visual perception was not consistent.</p>
<p>Instead, it oscillated like the ripples of a pond, cycling through good and bad periods with every step. We found that depending on the phases of their step-cycle, participants were more likely to sense changes in their environment, had faster reaction times, and were more likely to make decisions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-we-see-is-a-mash-up-of-the-brains-last-15-seconds-of-visual-information-175577">Everything we see is a mash-up of the brain's last 15 seconds of visual information</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Oscillations in nature, oscillations in vision</h2>
<p>Oscillations in vision have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.006">shown before</a>, but this is the first time they have been linked to walking.</p>
<p>Our key new finding is these oscillations slowed or increased to match the rhythm of a person’s step-cycle. On average, perception was best when swinging between steps, but the timing of these rhythms varied between participants. This new link between the body and mind offers clues as to how our brains coordinate perception and action during everyday behaviour. </p>
<p>Next, we want to investigate how these rhythms impact different populations. For example, certain psychiatric disorders can lead to people having <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922365/">abnormalities</a> in their gait.</p>
<p>There are further questions we want to answer: are slips and falls more common for those with stronger oscillations in vision? Do similar oscillations occur for our perception of sound? What is the optimal timing for presenting information and responding to it when a person is moving?</p>
<p>Our findings also hint at broader questions about the nature of perception itself. How does the brain stitch together these rhythms in perception to give us our seamless experience of an evening stroll?</p>
<p>These questions were once the domain of philosophers, but we may be able to answer them, as we combine technology with action to better understand natural behaviour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/223009/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Davidson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Psychology researchers have used virtual reality to find our brains oscillate with each step – an intriguing finding to better understand how we see the world.Matthew Davidson, Postdoctoral research fellow, lecturer, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2190572024-02-28T12:33:37Z2024-02-28T12:33:37ZMental fatigue has psychological triggers − new research suggests challenging goals can head it off<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574501/original/file-20240208-20-qjkjml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=27%2C9%2C6108%2C4093&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Feeling wiped out by mental work has different causes than what drives physical fatigue.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/stressed-business-woman-working-from-home-on-laptop-royalty-free-image/1249628154">nensuria/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Do you ever feel spacey, distracted and worn down toward the end of a long work-related task – especially if that task is entirely a mental one? For over a century, psychologists have been trying to determine whether mental fatigue is fundamentally similar to physical fatigue or whether it is governed by different processes. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2003.11.001">researchers have argued</a> that exerting mental effort depletes a limited supply of energy – the same way physical exertion fatigues muscles. The brain consumes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.2.325">energy in the form of glucose</a>, which can run low.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069511">Other researchers</a> see mental fatigue as more of a psychological phenomenon. Mind-wandering means the current mental effort is not being sufficiently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.07.001">rewarded</a> – or opportunities to do other, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12003196">more enjoyable activities are being lost</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=JGWPdcMAAAAJ">My</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=1fv9jBIAAAAJ">colleagues</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=I5HWMl8AAAAJ">I</a> have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02803-4">trying to resolve this question</a>. Our research suggests mental fatigue is in large part a psychological phenomenon – but one that can be modified by setting goals.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="spiraling clock face suggesting infinity" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/577994/original/file-20240226-26-701pnc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Tedious tasks can be especially hard to stick with diligently.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/rendering-classic-round-clock-with-infinity-time-royalty-free-image/1303651536">RB Stocker/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Vigilance is hard to sustain</h2>
<p>We began by reviewing the science related to mental fatigue. </p>
<p>Psychologists in the World War II era studied why soldiers monitoring radar were losing focus during their shifts. Psychologist Norman Mackworth designed the “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17470214808416738">clock test,</a>” in which military participants were asked to watch a large “clock” on a wall for up to two hours. The second hand ticked at regular intervals. But rarely and unpredictably, it would jump twice the usual distance. The task was to detect those tiny variations. </p>
<p>Within the first 30 minutes, the subjects’ performance dropped dramatically – and then continued to decline more gradually. Psychologists named the necessary mental focus “vigilance” – and concluded it was fundamentally limited in humans. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.2.230">Decades of research</a> since has confirmed that vigilance is difficult to maintain, even over brief intervals. In studies, people report <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211011333">feeling stressed and fatigued</a> following even a brief vigilance task. In 2021, one study even showed a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208211011333">reduction of blood flow through the brain</a> during vigilance. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I wondered: Are all forms of mental work like vigilance? Surely, there are instances where people can engage with mental work without feeling fatigued. </p>
<h2>Setting goals</h2>
<p>We decided to study whether <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000127">goal-setting</a> could improve mental focus and ran <a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02803-4">three experiments</a> to test this idea. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Man in front of computer screen showing four horizontal lines, with an X on one of them." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=799&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/574499/original/file-20240208-26-nh4c3j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1005&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Where’s the X?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Lauren D. Garner</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In the first experiment, we showed 108 undergraduate students at the University of Oregon a screen with four empty white boxes against a gray background. Every one to three seconds, an X appeared in one of the four boxes. Their task was to indicate where that symbol appeared as quickly as possible. After each response, the participant was given feedback about both their accuracy and their speed, such as “Correct! Reaction time = 400 milliseconds.” </p>
<p>Periodically during the 26-minute test, we also asked participants to rank their mental state as task-focused, distracted or mind-wandering. This gave us data about how they felt, in addition to how they did.</p>
<p>We randomly gave half of them a specific goal: Keep their reaction times under 400 milliseconds while staying as accurate as possible. We gave no goal to the other half. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-023-02803-4">Our results</a> were mixed. People who were given a goal did not experience as many slow reaction times, but having goals didn’t increase their top speed. It also didn’t change how often people reported feeling distracted. </p>
<h2>Setting increasingly harder goals</h2>
<p>We decided to tweak the test for our second experiment. Again, we randomly assigned a goal to half of the 112 fresh participants and no goal to the other half. But this time, as the experiment progressed, we increased the difficulty of the goal from a 450-millisecond reaction time to 400 milliseconds and then to 350 by the final block. Setting these harder-over-time goals had a huge effect on performance. </p>
<p>Compared with the participants assigned a set goal in the first experiment, the participants assigned increasingly more difficult goals in the second experiment had faster reaction times by an average of 45 milliseconds – about a 10% improvement. Participants in the second experiment also reported fewer instances of mind-wandering and showed no slowing of reaction times throughout the experiment. In other words, they showed no signs of mental fatigue. And we didn’t have to make the task easier. In fact, we made it harder. </p>
<p>Our first two experiments were conducted online because of shutdowns related to COVID-19. Our third study – a repeat of our second study – was conducted in person. We got the same results. </p>
<p>These findings, combined with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001148">other recent work</a> we’ve conducted, have changed the way my colleagues and I consider mental fatigue. It’s clear that when people strive for specific and hard-to-reach goals, they report feeling more motivated and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/mac0000141">they do not report feeling as drained</a> by mental work. </p>
<p>If you’re wondering how to implement these findings in your life, make simple, direct and specific goals for yourself. Mark when you complete the goals – the feedback can help you keep going. If you’re feeling particularly drained, take short breaks. Even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.10.001">brief rests</a> of less than two minutes can restore capacity for mental work.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219057/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Matthew Robison's laboratory receives funding from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and the Army Research Institute. </span></em></p>Setting specific, hard-to-reach goals seems to help people maintain motivation, while preventing them from feeling as drained by mental tasks.Matthew Robison, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Texas at ArlingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2176542024-02-08T13:40:39Z2024-02-08T13:40:39ZAnger, sadness, boredom, anxiety – emotions that feel bad can be useful<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573800/original/file-20240206-18-uxu2ut.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=199%2C0%2C5697%2C3550&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A bad feeling can trigger behavior that leads to something better.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/diverse-people-holding-emoticon-royalty-free-image/935941772">Rawpixel/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Remember the sadness that came with the last time you failed miserably at something? Or the last time you were so anxious about an upcoming event that you couldn’t concentrate for days?</p>
<p>These types of emotions are unpleasant to experience and can even feel overwhelming. People often try to avoid them, suppress them or ignore them. In fact, in psychology experiments, people will <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9394-7">pay money to not feel many negative emotions</a>. But recent research is revealing that emotions can be useful, and even negative emotions can bring benefits.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fzHtrJIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">In my</a> <a href="https://emotionsciencelab.com">emotion science lab</a> at Texas A&M University, we study how emotions like anger and boredom affect people, and we explore ways that these feelings can be beneficial. We share the results so people can learn how to use their emotions to build the lives they want.</p>
<p>Our studies and many others have shown that emotions aren’t uniformly good or bad for people. Instead, different emotions can result in better outcomes in particular types of situations. Emotions seem to function like a Swiss army knife – different emotional tools are helpful in specific situations.</p>
<h2>Sadness can help you recover from a failure</h2>
<p>Sadness occurs when people perceive that they’ve lost a goal or a desired outcome, and there’s nothing they can do to improve the situation. It could be getting creamed in a game or failing a class or work project, or it can be losing a relationship with a family member. Once evoked, sadness is associated with what psychologists call a deactivation state of doing little, without much behavior or <a href="https://dictionary.apa.org/arousal">physical arousal</a>. Sadness also brings <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ap.12232">thinking that is more detailed and analytical</a>. It makes you stop <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412474458">and think</a>.</p>
<p>The benefit of the stopping and thinking that comes with sadness is that it <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77619-4_4">helps people recover from failure</a>. When you fail, that typically means the situation you’re in is not conducive to success. Instead of just charging ahead in this type of scenario, sadness prompts people to step back and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016242">evaluate what is happening</a>.</p>
<p>When people are sad, they process information in a deliberative, analytical way and want to avoid risk. This mode comes with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.318">more accurate memory</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939108411048">judgment that is less influenced</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.11.005">by irrelevant assumptions or information</a>, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.010">better detection of other people lying</a>. These cognitive changes can encourage people to understand past failures and possibly prevent future ones.</p>
<p>Sadness can function differently when there’s the possibility that the failure could be avoided if other people help. In these situations, people tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1994.tb01049.x">cry and can experience</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10286-018-0526-y">increased physiological arousal</a>, such as quicker heart and breathing rates. Expressing sadness, through tears or verbally, has the benefit of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100114">potentially recruiting other people to help you</a> achieve your goals. This behavior appears to start in infants, with <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/1127506">tears and cries signaling caregivers to help</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A woman yells into a phone with her hair blowing up and back" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573801/original/file-20240206-18-9r5azc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=590&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anger can prepare you to blast through any roadblocks holding you back.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-is-shouting-into-phone-royalty-free-image/108876267">Betsie Van der Meer/Stone via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Anger prepares you to overcome an obstacle</h2>
<p>Anger occurs when people perceive they’re losing a goal or desired outcome, but that they could improve the situation by removing something that’s in their way. The obstacle could be an injustice committed by another person, or it could be a computer that repeatedly crashes while you’re trying to get work done. Once evoked, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024244">anger is associated with a “readiness for action,”</a> and your <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00313-6">thinking focuses on the obstacle</a>.</p>
<p>The benefit of being prepared for action and focused on what’s in your way is that it motivates you to overcome what’s standing between you and your goal. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913512003">When people are angry</a>, they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420240104">process information and make judgments rapidly</a>, want to take action, and are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.03.010">physiologically aroused</a>. In experiments, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.04.017">anger actually increases the force of people’s kicks</a>, which can be helpful in physical encounters. Anger results in better outcomes in situations that involve challenges to goals, including confrontational games, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000350">tricky puzzles</a>, video games with obstacles, and responding quickly on tasks.</p>
<p>Expressing anger, facially or verbally, has the benefit of <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000292">prompting other people to clear the way</a>. People are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.57">more likely to concede in negotiations</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.12.015">give in on issues</a> when their adversary looks or says they are angry.</p>
<h2>Anxiety helps you prepare for danger</h2>
<p>Anxiety occurs when people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105601202">perceive a potential threat</a>. This could be giving a speech to a large audience where failure would put your self-esteem on the line, or it could be a physical threat to yourself or loved ones. Once evoked, anxiety is associated with being prepared to respond to danger, including increased physical arousal and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01701.x">attention to threats and risk</a>.</p>
<p>Being prepared for danger means that if trouble brews, you can respond quickly to prevent or avoid it. When anxious, people detect threats rapidly, have fast reaction times and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01701.x">are on heightened alert</a>. The eye-widening that often comes with fear and anxiety even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2138">gives people a wider field of vision</a> and improves threat detection.</p>
<p>Anxiety prepares the body for action, which improves performance on a number of tasks that involve motivation and attention. It motivates people to prepare for upcoming events, such as devoting time to study for an exam. Anxiety also prompts protective behavior, which can help prevent the potential threat from becoming a reality.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A bored man at desk leans his head in his hand while looking at a computer." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/573803/original/file-20240206-32-tb0hax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Boredom may be trying to tell you that your current situation needs a shakeup.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/shot-of-a-young-businessman-looking-bored-while-royalty-free-image/1348347595">Jay Yuno/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Boredom can jolt you out of a rut</h2>
<p>There is less research on boredom than many other emotions, so it is not as well understood. Researchers debate <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.02.002">what it is</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3030459">what it does</a>.</p>
<p>Boredom appears to occur when someone’s current situation is <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3030459">not causing any other emotional response</a>. There are three situations <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9234-9">where this lack can occur</a>: when emotions fade, such as the happiness of a new car fading to neutral; when people don’t care about anything in their current situation, such as being at a large party where nothing interesting is happening; or when people have no goals. Boredom does not necessarily set in just because nothing is happening – someone with a goal of relaxation might feel quite content sitting quietly with no stimulation.</p>
<p>Psychology researchers think that the benefit of boredom in situations where people are not responding emotionally is that it <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000433">prompts making a change</a>. If nothing in your current situation is worth responding to, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.154">aversive experience of boredom can motivate you</a> to seek new situations or change the way you’re thinking. Boredom has been related to more risk seeking, a desire for novelty, and creative thinking. It seems to function like an emotional stick, nudging people out of their current situation to explore and create.</p>
<h2>Using the toolkit of emotion</h2>
<p>People want to be happy. But research is finding that a satisfying and productive life includes a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000292">mix of positive and negative emotions</a>. Negative emotions, even though they feel bad to experience, can motivate and prepare people for failure, challenges, threats and exploration.</p>
<p>Pleasant or not, your emotions can help guide you toward better outcomes. Maybe understanding how they prepare you to handle various situations will help you feel better about feeling bad.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217654/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Heather Lench does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Lots of people will do a lot to avoid feeling negative emotions. But researchers are figuring out how these unpleasant feelings actually have benefits.Heather Lench, Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2200022024-02-01T13:32:05Z2024-02-01T13:32:05ZRepublicans and Democrats consider each other immoral – even when treated fairly and kindly by the opposition<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/572531/original/file-20240131-17-40gn6h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=616%2C0%2C6139%2C3585&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How a political opponent acted didn't change participants' harsh moral judgments.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/divided-americans-royalty-free-image/1406665425">wildpixel/iStock via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Both Republicans and Democrats <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506231194279">regarded people with opposing political views as less moral</a> than people in their own party, even when their political opposites acted fairly or kindly toward them, according to experiments <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0Ji_hfUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">my</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=pEGM4-gAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">colleagues</a> <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andrew-Heim">and</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Xo5zopoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I</a> recently conducted. Even participants who self-identified as only moderately conservative or liberal made the same harsh moral judgments about those on the other side of the political divide.</p>
<p>Psychology researcher Eli Finkel and his colleagues have suggested that moral judgment <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715">plays a major role in political polarization</a> in the United States. My research team wondered if acts demonstrating good moral character could counteract partisan animosity. In other words, would you think more highly of someone who treated you well – regardless of their political leanings?</p>
<p>We decided to conduct an experiment based on game theory and turned to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-2681(82)90011-7">the Ultimatum Game</a>, which researchers developed to study the role of fairness in cooperation. Psychology researcher Hanah Chapman and her colleagues have demonstrated that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165565">unfairness in the Ultimatum Game elicits moral disgust</a>, making it a good tool for us to use to study moral judgment in real time.</p>
<p>The Ultimatum Game allowed us to experimentally manipulate whether partisans were treated unfairly, fairly or even kindly by political opponents. Participants had no knowledge about the person they were playing with beyond party affiliation and how they played the game.</p>
<p><iframe id="NH8PX" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/NH8PX/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In our experiments, even after fair or kind treatment, participants still rated political opponents as less moral. Moreover, this was true even for participants who didn’t consider themselves to have strong political bias.</p>
<p>Other psychology studies suggest that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339">conservatives are more politically extreme</a>, being more likely to adopt right-wing authoritarianism and more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611429024">sensitive to moral disgust</a>. However, in our experiments, we found no differences in party animosity and moral judgment between liberals and conservatives, suggesting political polarization is a bipartisan phenomenon.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Our experiments illustrate the magnitude of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001">current political polarization in the United States</a>, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/">which has been increasing</a> for at least the last four decades.</p>
<p>Americans with different political opinions <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1715">could once cooperate and maintain friendships</a> with one another. But as political attitudes begin to coincide with moral convictions, partisans increasingly view each other as immoral.</p>
<p>My colleagues and I are particularly interested in this topic, as we worry about the potential for political polarization based on moral convictions to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00271.x">descend into political violence</a>.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>My colleagues and I believe that a controlled scientific approach, rather than speculation, could help find ways to mitigate political polarization. Currently, we are running experiments to explore how online interaction – for example, through social media – can foster psychological distance between partisans. We’re also investigating how emotions such as disgust can contribute to the moral component of partisan animosity, and how the evolutionary origins of morality may play a psychological role in political polarization.</p>
<p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take on interesting academic work.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/220002/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phillip McGarry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With growing polarization, political attitudes have begun to coincide with moral convictions. Partisans increasingly view each other as immoral. New research reveals the depth of that conviction.Phillip McGarry, Ph.D. Candidate in Experimental Psychology, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2186882024-01-23T13:27:47Z2024-01-23T13:27:47Z‘Collective mind’ bridges societal divides − psychology research explores how watching the same thing can bring people together<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/563370/original/file-20231204-29-j6e4zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=219%2C18%2C3968%2C2763&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Paying attention to the same thing strengthens bonds between observers.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Audience-828584.jpg">Carlos David Gomez/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/508169/historically-low-faith-institutions-continues.aspx">Only about 1 in 4 Americans</a> said that they had trust in the nation’s institutions in 2023 – with big business (1 in 7), television news (1 in 7) and Congress (1 in 12) scraping the very bottom.</p>
<p>While institutional trust is decreasing, political polarization is increasing. The majority of Republicans (72%) and Democrats (64%) think of each other as more immoral than other Americans – <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/08/09/as-partisan-hostility-grows-signs-of-frustration-with-the-two-party-system/">a nearly 30% rise from 2016 to 2022</a>. When compared with similar democracies, the United States has exhibited the <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w26669/w26669.pdf">largest increase in animus</a> toward the opposing political party over the past 40 years. </p>
<p>When public trust and political consensus disappear, what remains? This <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=pEGM4-gAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">question has occupied my research</a> for the past 20 years, both as a scholar trained in social anthropology, organizational science and social cognition and as a professor of psychology.</p>
<p>Researchers don’t have all the answers, but it seems that even in the absence of public trust and agreement, people can share experiences. Whether watching a spelling bee or a football game, “we” still exist if “we” can witness it together.</p>
<p>My colleagues and I call this human capacity to take a collective perspective <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.06.009">theory of collective mind</a>. The foundation of collective mind, and what we study in the lab, is shared attention, instances when people experience the world with others.</p>
<h2>Shared attention amplifies experiences</h2>
<p>Experiments in the laboratory with adults show that shared experiences amplify psychological and behavioral reactions to the world.</p>
<p>My colleagues and I find that compared with attending to the world alone, or at different times than others, synchronous attention with others yields <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615589104">stronger memories, deeper emotions and firmer motivations</a>. Studies show that seeing words together <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019573">renders them more memorable</a>, watching sad movies together <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037697">makes them sadder</a>, and focusing together on shared goals <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.04.012">increases efforts toward their pursuit</a>. Sharing attention to the behavior of others <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613479807">yields more imitation of that behavior</a>. </p>
<p>Critically, those experiencing something with you need not be physically present. Although in some experiments participants sit side by side, in other studies participants believe they are attending together from different lab rooms or even across the nation. Irrespective of the location, the sense that “we are attending” to something together at the same time – as compared with in solitude or on your own schedule – amplifies the experience. </p>
<p>Laboratories in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614551162">United States</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3049-9">Australia</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1120332">Hungary</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01697">Germany</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01841">Denmark</a> have found similar results. Notably, some studies have found that people want to have more <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215318">shared experiences</a>, even when they don’t actually enjoy them more than solitary experiences.</p>
<p>What’s behind these observations? As a social species that survives through joint action, human beings in general need a common baseline from which to act. When shared experiences amplify what we know together, it can guide subsequent behavior, rendering that behavior more understandable and useful to the collective.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="people with refreshments walking into a dim movie theater" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570644/original/file-20240122-15-stpwdh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Whether you came together or just happened to attend the same screening, a shared experience like watching a movie can help you sense a shared mind.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/low-angle-view-of-smiling-spectators-walking-cinema-royalty-free-image/1146819268">Klaus Vedfelt/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Sharing attention builds relationships</h2>
<p>Shared attention happens within the bounds of our cherished relationships and groups, like when friends go to a movie together, but also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683211065921">outside of them</a>.</p>
<p>Research suggests that shared attention on a common subjective experience can build <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12867">relationships across the political divide</a> and strengthen <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1038496">cooperation among strangers</a>. For instance, when people co-witness that they have the same gut reaction to an unfamiliar piece of music or a meaningless inkblot, they like each other more, even if they have opposing political leanings. Critically, relational benefits are more likely when such subjective experiences are shared simultaneously – instances when people are most likely to sense <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000200">a shared mind</a>.</p>
<p>People can be attending next to one another or thousands of miles apart, in groups of two or 200, and the results are the same – shared attention <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000065">amplifies experiences</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.11.007">creates social bonds</a> and even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-41960-2">synchronizes individuals’ heartbeats and breaths</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12515">Scientists studying kids</a> find that interest in attending with others begins in the first year of human life, predating the development of language and preceding any notion of shared beliefs by several years. Human relationships don’t begin with sharing values; sharing attention comes first.</p>
<h2>The role of shared attention in society</h2>
<p>Before the advent of the internet, Americans shared attention broadly – they watched the same nightly news together, even if they did not always agree whether it was good or bad. Today, with people’s attention divided into media silos, there are more obstacles than ever to sharing attention with those with whom you disagree.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="hand holding remote points at TV with many blurry app icons" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570645/original/file-20240122-17-6fwxd9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How siloed is the media diet you consume?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/remote-control-with-smart-tv-royalty-free-image/1146810697">MariuszBlach/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And yet, even when we can no longer agree on what “we” believe, sharing attention to the basic sights and sounds of our world connects us. These moments can be relatively small, like watching a movie in the theater, or large, like watching the Super Bowl. However, remembering that we are sharing such experiences with Americans of all political persuasions is important.</p>
<p>Consider the Federal Communications Commission’s <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/Fairness-Doctrine">fairness doctrine</a>, a policy that controversial issues of public importance should receive balanced coverage, exposing audiences to differing views. In effect, it created episodes of shared attention across social, political and economic differences. </p>
<p>Institutional trust is now <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/508169/historically-low-faith-institutions-continues.aspx">almost twofold lower than it was in 1987</a>, the year the fairness doctrine was repealed. It is possible that the end of the fairness doctrine <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-policy-decisions-spawned-todays-hyperpolarized-media/">helped create a hyperpolarized media</a>, where the norm is sharing attention with those who are ideologically similar. </p>
<p>Of course, sharing attention on divisive issues can be painful. Yet, I believe it may also push us beyond our national fracture and toward a revitalization of public trust.</p>
<p>Why? When we share awareness of the world with others, no matter how distinct our beliefs, we form a community of minds. We are no longer alone. If we are to restore public trust and national ideals, sharing attention across societal divides looks like a way forward.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/218688/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Garriy Shteynberg receives funding from National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Even in a moment of extreme partisanship, ‘we’ still exist if ‘we’ can witness something together. Researchers are exploring how shared attention can build connection.Garriy Shteynberg, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of TennesseeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2093052023-08-14T12:23:35Z2023-08-14T12:23:35ZThe same people excel at object recognition through vision, hearing and touch – another reason to let go of the learning styles myth<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542202/original/file-20230810-22046-z0l1ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=57%2C2%2C1432%2C895&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Teachers want to connect with students in ways that help them learn.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/MPreq6">Government of Prince Edward Island</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The idea that individual people are visual, auditory or kinesthetic learners and learn better if instructed according to these learning styles is <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1147498">one of the most enduring neuroscience myths in education</a>.</p>
<p>There is no proof of the value of learning styles as educational tools. According to experts, believing in learning styles amounts to believing in astrology. But this “neuromyth” keeps going strong.</p>
<p>A 2020 review of teacher surveys revealed that <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.602451">9 out of 10 educators believe students learn better</a> in their preferred learning style. There has been no decrease in this belief since the approach was debunked as early as 2004, despite efforts by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x">scientists</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-myth-of-learning-styles/557687/">journalists</a>, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-with-learning-styles/">popular science magazines</a>, <a href="https://poorvucenter.yale.edu/LearningStylesMyth">centers</a> <a href="https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/learning-styles-preferences/">for teaching</a> and <a href="https://youtu.be/rhgwIhB58PA">YouTubers</a> over that period. A <a href="https://www.worklearning.com/2006/08/04/learning_styles/">cash prize</a> offered since 2004 to whomever can prove the benefits of accounting for learning styles remains unclaimed. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, licensing exam materials for teachers in 29 states and the District of Columbia <a href="https://www.educationnext.org/stubborn-myth-learning-styles-state-teacher-license-prep-materials-debunked-theory/">include information on learning styles</a>. Eighty percent of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725719830301">popular textbooks</a> used in pedagogy courses mention learning styles. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-90792-1_6">What teachers believe can also trickle down to learners</a>, who may falsely attribute any learning challenges to a mismatch between their instructor’s teaching style and their own learning style. </p>
<h2>Myth of learning styles is resilient</h2>
<p>Without any evidence to support the idea, why do people keep believing in learning styles?</p>
<p>One possibility is that people who have <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1147498">incomplete knowledge about the brain</a> might be more susceptible to these ideas. For instance, someone might learn about distinct brain areas that process visual and auditory information. This knowledge may increase the appeal of models that include distinct visual and aural learning styles. But this limited understanding of how the brain works misses the importance of multisensory brain areas that integrate information across senses. </p>
<p>Another reason that people may stick with the belief about learning styles is that the evidence against the model mostly consists of studies that have failed to find support for it. To some people, this could suggest that enough good studies just haven’t been done. Perhaps they imagine that finding support for the intuitive – but wrong – notion of learning styles simply awaits more sensitive experiments, done in the right context, using the latest flavor of learning styles. Despite scientists’ efforts to improve the reputation of <a href="https://www.insidescience.org/news/when-scientists-find-nothing-value-null-results">null results</a> and encourage their publication, <a href="https://frontlinegenomics.com/a-negative-result-is-positive-for-science/">finding “no effect” may simply not capture attention</a>.</p>
<p>But our recent research results do in fact contradict predictions from learning styles models.</p>
<p><a href="http://gauthier.psy.vanderbilt.edu/isabel-gauthier/">We are</a> <a href="https://jasonc.how/">psychologists</a> who study individual differences in perception. We do not directly study learning styles, but our work provides evidence against models that split “visual” and “auditory” learners. </p>
<h2>Object recognition skills related across senses</h2>
<p>A few years ago, we became interested in why some people become visual experts more easily than others. We began measuring individual differences in visual object recognition. We tested people’s abilities in performing a variety of tasks like matching or memorizing objects from several categories such as birds, planes and computer-generated artificial objects.</p>
<p>Using statistical methods historically applied to intelligence, we found that almost 90% of the differences between people in these tasks were <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000129">explained by a general ability we called “o”</a> for object recognition. We found that “o” was distinct from general intelligence, concluding that <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-vary-a-lot-in-how-well-they-recognize-match-or-categorize-the-things-they-see-researchers-attribute-this-skill-to-an-ability-they-call-o-182100">book smarts may not be enough to excel in domains</a> that rely heavily on visual abilities. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="images of abstract objects, a chest X-ray, four versions of a prepared food and four imaginary robots" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=581&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/469066/original/file-20220615-9175-6vr9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=730&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Examples of tasks that tap into object recognition ability, from top left: 1) Are these two objects identical despite the change in viewpoint? 2) Which lung has a tumor? 3) Which of these dishes is the oddball? 4) Which option is the average of the four robots on the right? Answers: 1) no 2) left 3) third 4) fourth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Isabel Gauthier</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Discussing this work with colleagues, they often asked whether this recognition ability was only visual. Unfortunately we just didn’t know, because the kinds of tests required to measure individual differences in object perception in nonvisual modalities did not exist.</p>
<p>To address the challenge, we chose to start with touch, because vision and touch share their ability to provide information about the shape of objects. We tested participants with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.22.14.3260">a variety of new touch tasks</a>, varying the format of the tests and the kinds of objects participants touched. We found that people who excelled at recognizing new objects visually also excelled at recognizing them by touch.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="images of hand touching 3D printed spaceships" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/542197/original/file-20230810-15-gp9ykf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In a task measuring haptic object recognition ability, participants touch pairs of 3D-printed objects without looking at them and decide if they are exactly the same.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Isabel Gauthier</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Moving from touch to listening, we were more skeptical. Sound is different from touch and vision and unfolds in time rather than space. </p>
<p>In our latest studies, we created a battery of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105542">auditory object recognition tests</a> – <a href="https://jasonc.how/oa_demo/">you can test yourself</a>. We measured how well people could learn to recognize different bird songs, different people’s laughs and different keyboard sounds.</p>
<p>Quite surprisingly, the ability to recognize by listening was positively correlated with the ability to recognize objects by sight – we measured the correlation at about 0.5. A correlation of 0.5 is not perfect, but it signifies quite a strong effect in psychology. As a comparison, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ">mean correlation of IQ scores</a> between identical twins is around 0.86, between siblings around 0.47, and between cousins 0.15.</p>
<p>This relationship between recognition abilities in different senses stands in contrast to learning styles studies’ failure to find expected correlations among variables. For instance, people’s <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.238">preferred learning styles do not predict performance</a> on measures of pictorial, auditory or tactile learning.</p>
<h2>Better to measure abilities than preferences?</h2>
<p>The myth of learning styles is resilient. <a href="https://advances.asee.org/opinion-uses-misuses-and-validity-of-learning-styles/">Fans stick with the idea</a> and the perceived possible benefits of asking students how they prefer to learn.</p>
<p>Our results add something new to the mix, beyond evidence that accounting for learning preferences does not help, and beyond evidence supporting better teaching methods – like <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100314">active learning</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13047">multimodal instruction</a> – that actually do foster learning.</p>
<p>Our work reveals that people vary much more than typically expected in perceptual abilities, and that these abilities are correlated across touch, vision and hearing. Just as we can expect that a student <a href="https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543042003359">excelling in English is likely also to excel in math</a>, we should expect that the student who learns best from visual instruction may also learn just as well when manipulating objects. And because cognitive skills and perceptual skills are not strongly related, measuring them both can provide a more complete picture of a person’s abilities.</p>
<p>In sum, measuring perceptual abilities should be more useful than measuring perceptual preferences, because <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1777">perceptual preferences consistently fail to predict student learning</a>. It’s possible that learners may benefit from knowing they have weak or strong general perceptual skills, but critically, this has yet to be tested. Nevertheless, there remains no support for the “neuromyth” that teaching to specific learning styles facilitates learning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209305/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Isabel Gauthier receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Chow does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The idea that each person has a particular learning style is a persistent myth in education. But new research provides more evidence that you won’t learn better in one modality than another.Isabel Gauthier, David K. Wilson Professor of Psychology, Vanderbilt UniversityJason Chow, Ph.D. Student in Psychological Sciences, Vanderbilt UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2105262023-07-27T17:25:24Z2023-07-27T17:25:24ZTo get rid of hazing, clarify what people really think is acceptable behavior and redefine what it means to be loyal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539622/original/file-20230726-21-ihkl30.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=222%2C90%2C4769%2C3492&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Students often have the wrong idea about what their peers think is acceptable.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/waist-up-of-six-friends-having-fun-and-drinking-royalty-free-image/1290569983?phrase=+party+red+cups&adppopup=true">Anastasiia Korotkova/iStock via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>My husband and I spent a late August day several years ago settling in our oldest child, Andrew, for the start of his first year at college. We went to Walmart to buy a mini fridge and rug. We hung posters above his bed. We attended the obligatory goodbye family lunch before heading to our car to return to a slightly quieter house.</p>
<p>Two weeks later, Andrew called me, his voice breaking. A student in his dorm had just died as a result of head trauma after a fall the young man took while extremely drunk. Media coverage in the months following indicated that instead of seeking help immediately after the fall, the young man’s friends waited nearly 20 hours to call 911. At that point, it was too late for potentially lifesaving medical treatment.</p>
<p>I’m a mom of three and a professor <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-dCo5lYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">who studies social norms</a> – the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619866455">unwritten rules that shape people’s behavior</a>. In my book “<a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674271111">Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels</a>” I explore the factors that keep people from speaking up in the face of problematic behavior of all types.</p>
<p>I’ve thought about the story of my son’s classmate often as reports recently surfaced of the widespread hazing among players on the Northwestern University football team, <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/fourth-lawsuit-northwestern-football-hazing-scandal/">four of whom are suing the institution</a>. Hazing is remarkably common; for instance, one NCAA report states <a href="https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2016/9/26/addressing-student-athlete-hazing.aspx">74% of student-athletes experience it</a>. Thankfully <a href="https://www.hanknuwer.com/hazing-destroying-young-lives/">hazing-related deaths are more rare</a>.</p>
<p>I suspect the root cause of these kinds of tragic situations on college campuses is the same: misperceiving what other students are thinking and feeling.</p>
<h2>Misperceiving that you’re the only one</h2>
<p>Problematic behavior in group settings – from students ignoring signs of a medical emergency to athletes hazing freshman recruits – often continues because people privately feel uncomfortable with what they see happening <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674271111">yet believe their peers don’t share their concerns</a>.</p>
<p>This perception, regardless of its accuracy, leads people to stay silent because they fear the consequences of speaking up: Will doing so lead to rejection from the group? The most common reason male college students give for failing to speak up in situations involving sexual misconduct is <a href="https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.1601.3">fear of being laughed at or ridiculed</a>. This fear is a normal part of human nature. But it weighs especially heavily when you’re an 18-year-old in a new environment and want desperately to fit in.</p>
<p>Psychologists call this condition <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268021995168">pluralistic ignorance</a>: A majority of people privately believe one thing but incorrectly assume that most others feel differently. Pluralistic ignorance explains why most college students feel there’s too much alcohol use on their campus but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.243">believe other students are perfectly comfortable</a> with the amount of drinking. It explains why most college men privately find sexually aggressive behavior offensive but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9446-y">wrongly believe that others endorse it</a>, and why many athletes may privately disagree with hazing but <a href="https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol29/iss2/6">believe that their peers support it</a>.</p>
<p>Why do people fail to recognize that others might in fact share their own beliefs – about hazing or alcohol use or sexual misconduct? It’s because people tend to believe that the behavior of others <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674271111">reflects their true thoughts and feelings</a>. Thus, if other people aren’t speaking up to share their concerns about hazing, you might assume they must be perfectly comfortable with such behavior – even though you’re aware that your own behavior does not always match your beliefs.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A bunch of beer bottles on the floor next to a person's arm hanging off couch." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539623/original/file-20230726-29-h2u7r6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539623/original/file-20230726-29-h2u7r6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539623/original/file-20230726-29-h2u7r6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539623/original/file-20230726-29-h2u7r6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539623/original/file-20230726-29-h2u7r6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539623/original/file-20230726-29-h2u7r6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539623/original/file-20230726-29-h2u7r6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research finds some athletes don’t speak out against hazing out fear of being rejected by teammates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/drunk-man-and-beer-bottles-royalty-free-image/523191212?phrase=drunk&adppopup=true">Bill Varie/The Image Bank via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Shift what it means to be loyal</h2>
<p>So what can parents, coaches and college administrators do to prevent hazing?</p>
<p>Empirical evidence demonstrates that educating students about the psychological factors that lead people to <a href="https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2006.67.880">misperceive what others are actually thinking and feeling</a> can make a real difference.</p>
<p>My own research has shown that women have lower rates of disordered eating <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.21.5.519">if they learned as freshmen how campus social norms</a> contribute to unhealthy body image ideals. I’ve found that college students who <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12489">learn that many of their peers struggle</a> with mental health challenges have a more positive view of mental health services.</p>
<p>So the first step in preventing hazing is to talk to college students about pluralistic ignorance – what it is and how it happens. Understanding the psychological processes that lead them to misperceive what those around them are actually thinking is the first step in helping students <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-some-people-are-willing-to-challenge-bullying-corruption-and-bad-behavior-even-at-personal-risk-140829">speak up in the face of bad behavior</a>.</p>
<p>The next – and crucial – step is to shift norms about what group loyalty means. In tight-knit groups – such as athletic teams – people feel <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/089124389003004004">considerable pressure to show loyalty</a> to other group members. This sometimes translates into staying silent in the face of bad behavior by their peers — sticking together, regardless of right or wrong.</p>
<p>But the same underlying dynamics of peer influence and group cohesion can help create more positive beliefs and behavior. How? By shifting norms about what it means to protect group members.</p>
<p>Instead of staying silent about bad behavior, the expectation becomes stepping in to keep them safe.</p>
<p>This approach to changing their behavior teaches students that a single bad act hurts the reputation of the entire group, that all members of the group have a responsibility to protect their friends. Being a good friend, fraternity brother, or teammate means speaking up, not staying silent.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210526/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine A. Sanderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>People often privately feel uncomfortable about bad behavior they see around them but mistakenly believe their peers don’t share their concerns.Catherine A. Sanderson, Poler Family Professor and Chair of Psychology, Amherst CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1932792023-07-25T12:23:48Z2023-07-25T12:23:48ZLaughter can communicate a lot more than good humor – people use it to smooth social interactions<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539054/original/file-20230724-14014-5js0is.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=964%2C554%2C7074%2C4796&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A well-deployed laugh can help grease a social interaction, even if nothing is funny.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/three-young-people-sit-around-a-table-and-giggle-as-royalty-free-image/1391836113">Catherine Falls Commercial/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Laughter is an everyday reminder that we humans are animals. In fact, when recorded laughter is slowed down, listeners <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2014.03.003">can’t tell whether the sound is from a person or an animal</a>.</p>
<p>We throw our heads back and bare our teeth in a monkeylike grin. Sometimes we double over and lose our ability to speak for a moment, reverting temporarily to hooting apes. And just as hoots and howls help strengthen bonds in a troop of primates or a pack of wolves, laughter <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2012.07.002">helps us connect with others</a>. </p>
<p>Laughter is <a href="https://doi.org/10.4161/cib.3.2.10944">evolutionarily ancient</a>. Known as a “play signal,” mammalian laughter accompanies playful interactions to signal harmless intentions and keep the play going. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0lV838pvdU">Chimps</a> laugh. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-84UJpYFRM">Rats</a> laugh. <a href="https://www.petalk.org/petalk.org/LaughingDog.pdf">Dogs</a> laugh. Perhaps even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1578/AM.31.2.2005.187">dolphins</a> laugh.</p>
<p>And laughter is an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000023654.73558.72">essential feature</a> of human social interactions. We laugh when we’re amused, of course. But we also laugh out of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.250">embarrassment</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb00478.x">politeness</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.39.1.39">nervousness</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000156">derision</a>.</p>
<p>I’m a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=pdDe_8wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">psychology researcher who studies</a> how people use laughter to connect, and sometimes disconnect, with others. For humans, laughter has expanded from its original function as a play signal to serve a variety of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12383">social functions</a>.</p>
<h2>Laughter smooths social interactions</h2>
<p>Amused laughter is a response to <a href="https://theconversation.com/science-deconstructs-humor-what-makes-some-things-funny-64414">what scholars of humor call</a> a “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000041">benign violation</a>” – a situation that could represent a threat but that the laughing person has concluded is safe. (Psychologists love to ruin good things like comedy by overexplaining them.) </p>
<p>Laughter is a way to communicate that an interaction is playful, harmless and unserious. It’s often not a reliable sign that a person is having a good time, even though people sometimes laugh when they are enjoying themselves. An awkward exchange, a misunderstanding, a mocking joke – all these potentially uncomfortable moments are smoothed over by laughter. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I were curious about whether the tendency to laugh is a trait that is consistent for each person regardless of context or whether it depends on whom they’re interacting with. In one study, we had people talk to 10 strangers in a series of one-on-one conversations. Then we <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2021.0187">counted how many times they laughed</a>.</p>
<p>To our surprise, we found that how often a person laughs – at least when talking to strangers – is fairly consistent. Some people are laughers, and others are not. Whom they were talking to didn’t have a strong effect. At least in our sample, there weren’t hilarious partners who made everyone they talked to laugh.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Man smiling sitting beside a woman with an uncomfortable expression" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539055/original/file-20230724-17-fu7dml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=534&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Laughter can be a response to an uncomfortable interaction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/awkward-conversation-among-coworkers-man-thinks-hes-royalty-free-image/980443052">corners74/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We found that the people who tended to laugh more enjoyed the conversations less. If you intrinsically enjoy talking to strangers and feel comfortable doing so, you may not feel the need to laugh a lot and smooth out the interaction – you trust it is going well. However, people felt they had more in common with these big-time laughers.</p>
<p>So in conversations between strangers, laughing a lot is not a sign of enjoyment, but it will make your partners feel similar to you. They will be likelier to agree that the two of you have something in common, which is a key ingredient in social connection. I suspect people borrow and transform the play signal of laughter to influence situations that, on their face, have nothing to do with play. </p>
<h2>Laughter sends a message</h2>
<p>We humans have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.01.002">remarkable control over our voices</a>. Not only can we speak, but we can also alter the meaning of our words by modifying our vocal pitch, vowel placement, breathiness or nasality. A breathy “hello” becomes a flirtatious advance, a growly “hello” becomes a threat, and an upturned, high-pitched “hello” becomes a fearful question. </p>
<p>This got me thinking: Maybe people change the sound of their laughter depending on what they want to communicate.</p>
<p>After all, while some forms of laughter are considered uncontrollable – the kind that leaves you <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)80023-3">physically weak</a> and running out of oxygen – <a href="https://www.internationalphoneticassociation.org/icphs-proceedings/ICPhS2011/OnlineProceedings/RegularSession/Tanaka/Tanaka.pdf">most everyday laughter</a> is at least somewhat under your control. </p>
<p>It turns out that there are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.005">already</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2019.8683566">a lot</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2014.09.002">of studies</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000023654.73558.72">looking at</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1524993113">different</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1109/TAFFC.2017.2737000">forms</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1391244">of laughter</a>. Although their perspectives and methods differ, researchers agree that laughter takes many acoustic forms and occurs in many different situations.</p>
<p>The most popular approach for categorizing the many forms of laughter is to sort them by the internal state of the person laughing. Is the laughter “genuine,” reflecting a true positive state? Or is it the result of embarrassment, <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-does-it-feel-good-to-see-someone-fail-107349">schadenfreude</a> or mirth?</p>
<p>I wasn’t satisfied with those approaches. Laughter is a communicative behavior. To me it seems we should therefore categorize it according to how it influences the people listening, not based on how the person felt while laughing. The word “cat” transmits the same information to a listener regardless of whether the speaker loves or loathes felines. And the effect of a giggle on a listener is the same regardless of how the giggler feels, assuming the giggle sounds the same.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="three men talking and laughing in an office setting" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=404&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/539056/original/file-20230724-29-atdae0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are different flavors of laughter, and context matters.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/co-workers-laughing-together-at-meeting-royalty-free-image/645973081">Klaus Vedfelt/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Pleasurable, reassuring or threatening</h2>
<p>With the communicative nature of laughter in mind, my colleagues and I proposed that laughter can be boiled down to three basic <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12383">social functions</a> – all under the cloak of playfulness.</p>
<p>First, there’s reward laughter. This type is most clearly linked to laughter’s evolved role as a play signal. It is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00346">pleasurable</a> to hear and produce, thus making a playful interaction even more enjoyable. </p>
<p>Then there’s affiliation laughter. It conveys the same message of harmlessness without delivering a burst of pleasure. People can use it to reassure, appease and soothe. This is the most common laughter in everyday conversations – people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1993.tb00478.x">punctuate their speech</a> with it to ensure that their intentions aren’t misconstrued. </p>
<p>Finally, there’s dominance laughter. This type turns the nonserious message on its head. By laughing at someone, you are conveying that they are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.01.012">not worth taking seriously</a>. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183811">identified</a> acoustic properties of laughter that make it sound more rewarding, friendly or dominant. I have also found that people change how their laughter sounds during conversations that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-020-00022-w">emphasize those three social tasks</a>. The changes are subtle because the context – the situation, the people’s relationship, the conversation topic – does a lot to clarify a laugh’s meaning. </p>
<p>There is no such thing as a fake laugh. All laughter serves genuine social functions, helping you navigate complex social interactions. And because you look and sound so silly while doing it, laughter ensures no one takes themselves too seriously.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrienne Wood receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Laughter is so fundamental that animals like chimps, rats and dogs share the ability with humans. But in people it serves more serious social functions than just letting others know you’re having fun.Adrienne Wood, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2074042023-07-17T15:04:00Z2023-07-17T15:04:00ZA 1-minute gun safety video helped preteen children be more careful around real guns – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/537385/original/file-20230713-29-yv0v92.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=133%2C0%2C3420%2C2423&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A little training helped kids make safer choices when they stumbled across a gun.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/child-found-pistol-in-drawer-at-home-royalty-free-image/940915496">M-Production/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em> </p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Children who watched a 1-minute-long gun safety video were more cautious when they found a real handgun hidden in a drawer in our lab compared to children who watched a car safety video, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2023.2397">according to our randomized clinical trial</a> published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=LUrHrxcAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">We</a> <a href="https://sophiekja.com">observed</a> this difference even though children saw the gun safety video a week earlier at home and even after they had watched scenes from a violent movie in our lab.</p>
<p>We tested 226 children ages 8 to 12. By the flip of a coin, children watched either a gun safety video or car safety video alone at home. Both safety videos featured The Ohio State University Chief of Police in full uniform. Younger children tend to respect authority figures, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1348/135532500167967">especially those in uniform</a>.</p>
<p>Then a week later, pairs of kids – who were friends or siblings, for example – came to our lab at Ohio State to participate in what we told them was a study about what children do for entertainment.</p>
<p>First, the child volunteers watched scenes from a PG-rated violent movie. After 20 minutes, they went to a playroom furnished with toys and games like Lego and checkers. The room also contained a file cabinet with two disabled 9 mm handguns hidden in the bottom drawer. We told the kids they could play with any of the toys and games in the room and then left them alone. A hidden camera videotaped the children’s behavior.</p>
<p>By the end of 20 minutes, 96% of the children had found the guns. Children are naturally curious, and <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/12/09/health/gun-safety-tips-for-home-parents-children-wellness/index.html">adults often underestimate their ability</a> to find guns hidden in the home.</p>
<p><iframe id="UtRqp" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/UtRqp/5/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Kids who saw the gun safety video (compared to the car safety video) were more likely to tell an adult (33.9% of kids vs. 10.6% of kids), less likely to touch a gun (39.3% vs. 67.3%) and held it for less time if they did touch it (42.0 seconds vs. 99.9 seconds). They were also less likely to pull the trigger (8.9% vs. 29.8%), and pulled the trigger fewer times if they did pull it (4.2 vs. 7.2). </p>
<p>Risk factors that raised the likelihood of engaging in unsafe behavior around the guns included being male, watching age-inappropriate PG-13 and R-rated movies, and interest in guns, as reported by parents.</p>
<p>We also identified several protective factors that made children less likely to engage in unsafe behavior around the guns. One was previous exposure to gun safety material in a course or video. Another was having guns in the home, which makes sense because surveys find that parents with guns are <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2017/06/26/among-u-s-gun-owners-parents-more-likely-than-non-parents-to-keep-their-guns-locked-and-unloaded/">more likely to talk to their children about gun safety</a> than parents without guns. Finally, having negative attitudes about guns, like believing they’re not cool or fun, made kids less likely to engage in unsafe behavior in our study.</p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>In 2020 in the U.S., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc2201761">guns killed more people ages 1 through 19</a> than any other cause, including motor vehicle crashes, drug overdoses and poisoning. And the rate of gun-related deaths among U.S. children has been increasing for about a decade. Gun deaths among U.S. children under 18 <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/">increased from 1,732 in 2019</a> to 2,590 in 2021.</p>
<p>Gun safety videos might be a relatively simple but effective option to help decrease these gun-related deaths and injuries.</p>
<h2>What still isn’t known</h2>
<p>Participants in this study watched the safety video about a week before they came to our lab. Future longitudinal research is needed to establish how long the protective effects of firearm safety videos might last.</p>
<p>To see if our results apply in other situations, future research should also be conducted in a more naturalistic setting – like the home – and with children of a variety of ages and from geographical locations beyond Ohio.</p>
<h2>What other research is being done</h2>
<p>Other research on children and gun safety primarily focuses on access to guns and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1494">responsible, safe</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.6.707">and secure gun storage</a>. The <a href="https://www.aap.org/en/advocacy/state-advocacy/safe-storage-of-firearms/">American Academy of Pediatrics recommends</a> that gun owners store their firearms unloaded, locked up and separate from ammunition.</p>
<p><em>This article has been updated to clarify the ages of those included in the statistics about gun-related deaths.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207404/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Kids were more likely to tell an adult and less likely to touch or hold a handgun that they discovered if they’d recently watched a short video about gun safety.Brad Bushman, Professor of Communication, The Ohio State UniversitySophie L. Kjaervik, Ph.D. Candidate in Communication, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2069812023-06-06T23:01:09Z2023-06-06T23:01:09ZNearly 20% of the cultural differences between societies boil down to ecological factors – new research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530386/original/file-20230606-19-giiuq1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=584%2C225%2C4661%2C3174&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How much of a culture could be due to things like the grain it traditionally grew?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/farmer-are-planting-rice-in-the-fields-against-royalty-free-image/1032740534">Visoot Uthairam/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In some parts of the world, the rules are strict; in <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1197754">others they are far more lax</a>. In some places, people are likely <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231172500">to plan for the future</a>, while in others people are more likely to live in the moment. In some societies people prefer more personal space; in others they are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039">comfortable being in close quarters with strangers</a>.</p>
<p>Why do these kinds of differences exist?</p>
<p>There are a number of theories about <a href="https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250800077/the-weirdest-people-in-the-world">where cultural differences come from</a>. Some social scientists point to the role of specific institutions, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5141">like the Catholic Church</a>. Others focus on historical differences <a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Geography-of-Thought/Richard-Nisbett/9780743255356">in philosophical traditions</a> across societies, or on the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246850">kinds of crops that were historically grown</a> in different regions.</p>
<p>But there’s another possible answer. In a growing number of cases, researchers have found that human culture can be shaped by key features of the environments in which people live.</p>
<p>Just how strong is this ecology-culture connection overall? In a new study, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=GsJOu0sAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate">our</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mbqOySoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">lab</a>, the <a href="https://psychology.asu.edu/research/labs/culture-ecology-lab">Culture and Ecology Lab at Arizona State University</a>, set out to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.0485">answer this question</a>.</p>
<h2>How does ecology shape culture?</h2>
<p>Ecology includes basic physical and social characteristics of the environment – such factors as how abundant resources are, how common infectious diseases are, how densely populated a place is, and how much threat there is to human safety. Variables like temperature and the availability of water can be key ecological features.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="robed person leads three camels across a sand dune landscape" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530384/original/file-20230606-19-dz4rnj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What impact does a dry climate have on the culture of the people who live in it?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/camels-dunes-erg-chebbi-sahara-desert-morocco-royalty-free-image/122137131">Peter Adams/Stone via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The three examples of cultural differences we started with illustrate how this can work. It turns out that the strength of social norms in a given culture is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1197754">linked to the amount of threat</a>, from such factors as war and disasters, a society faces. Stronger rules may help members of a society stick together and cooperate in the face of these dangers.</p>
<p>Places with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231172500">less access to water tend to be more future-oriented</a>. When fresh water is scarce, the thinking goes, there is more need to plan so that it doesn’t run out.</p>
<p>And <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117698039">in places with colder temperatures</a> people feel less need for lots of personal space in public, perhaps because there <a href="https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S305077">tend to be fewer germs</a>, or maybe from an impulse, on some basic level, to keep warm. </p>
<p>All of these examples show that cultures are shaped, at least in part, by the basic features of the environments people live in. And in fact, there are many other examples in which researchers have linked particular <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000104">cultural differences to particular differences in ecology</a>.</p>
<h2>Quantifying the connection</h2>
<p>For over 200 societies, we gathered comprehensive data on nine key features of ecology – such as rainfall, temperature, infectious disease and population density – and dozens of aspects of human cultural variation – including values, strength of norms, personality, motivation and institutional characteristics. With this information, we created <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01738-z">the open-access EcoCultural Dataset</a>.</p>
<p>Using this data set, we were able to generate a range of estimates for just how much of human cultural variation <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.0485">can be explained by ecology</a>.</p>
<p>We ran a series of statistical models looking at the relationship between our ecological variables and each of the 66 cultural outcomes we tracked. For each of the cultural outcomes, we calculated the average amount of the cultural diversity across societies that was explained by this combination of nine different ecological factors. We found that nearly 20% of cultural variation was explained by the combination of these ecological features.</p>
<p>Importantly, our statistical estimates take into account common issues in cross-cultural research. One complicating factor is that societies that are close to each other in space will be similar in ways beyond the variables measured in any particular study. In the same way, there will likely be unmeasured similarities between societies with shared historical roots. For example, cultural similarities between southern Germany and Austria may be accounted for by their shared cultural and linguistic heritage, as well as similar climates and levels of wealth.</p>
<p>Twenty percent may not sound impressive, but in fact this is several times larger than the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.069">average effect in our field of social psychology</a>, in which typically up to around 4% or 5% of the variation in an outcome is explained.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="favela of colorful small buildings clustered tightly on a hillside" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/530385/original/file-20230606-17-jpx7x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Population density is one factor that can leave its mark on a place’s culture.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/rio-de-janeiros-rocinha-is-the-largest-shanty-town-royalty-free-image/918103584">Photo Patrick Altmann/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More left to discover</h2>
<p>In testing over 600 relationships among features of ecology and culture, we identified a number of intriguing new relationships. For example, we found that the amount of variation over time in levels of infectious disease was linked to the strength of social norms. This link suggests that it’s not just places with high levels of threat from germs, but also places where that threat varies more over time, such as India, that have stricter social rules.</p>
<p>There’s also a growing body of research suggesting that as the ecology of a place changes, so too does the culture. For example, a general decline in rates of infectious disease in the U.S., up until the current pandemic, is correlated with a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0516-z">loosening of social norms over the past century</a>. Similarly, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000862">increases in population density</a> appear to be linked to declines in birth rates around the world in the past several decades.</p>
<p>Because the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01738-z">EcoCultural Dataset</a> contains not only contemporary measures of ecology, but also information about their variability and predictability over time, we believe it will be a rich resource for other scholars to mine. We’ve made all of this data free for <a href="https://osf.io/r9msf/">anyone to access</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.f7m0cfz1x">and explore</a>. </p>
<p>Ecology isn’t the only reason people around the world think and behave differently. But our work suggests that, at least in part, our environments shape our cultures.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/206981/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alexandra Wormley receives funding from the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Varnum has previously received funding from the National Science Foundation, the US Fulbright Program, and the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation. </span></em></p>A number of theories try to explain how cultural differences come to be. A new study quantifies how such factors as resource abundance, population density and infectious disease risk can contribute.Alexandra Wormley, Ph.D. Student in Social Psychology, Arizona State UniversityMichael Varnum, Associate Professor of Psychology, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1889682022-09-27T12:28:13Z2022-09-27T12:28:13ZTwo wrongs trying to make a right – makeup calls are common for MLB umpires, financial analysts and probably you<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486637/original/file-20220926-15-iabcgr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=144%2C0%2C5449%2C3783&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After a mistake, people may try to correct the error with an intentional wrong judgment, this time in favor of the previously wronged party. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/nicky-lopez-of-the-kansas-city-royals-slides-into-second-news-photo/1392435258">Ed Zurga/Getty Images Sport via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Major League Baseball has been trying something new in recent seasons: <a href="https://www.mlb.com/glossary/rules/replay-review">instant replay for umpire calls</a>. After replay review, some erroneous calls on the field can be overturned. Baseball in its own fashion is acknowledging what sports fans have always known – officials make mistakes.</p>
<p>The most notable manifestation of this tendency is the all-too-common bad call and its companion, the makeup call. When an umpire makes a bad call, the only way they could presumably restore balance to the game is to make an additional bad call, but this time in favor of the wronged team. For example, an umpire may incorrectly call a “strike” on a pitch that was clearly outside the strike zone, only to make up for the error later by calling a “ball” on a pitch that clearly caught the edge of the strike zone.</p>
<p>Instant replay isn’t perfect and isn’t used in every situation, which leaves room for umpires to make bad calls and subsequent makeup calls. Beyond sports, there are lots of other ambiguous situations in everyday life where people try to make up for errors in judgment with makeup calls meant to restore the balance.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UP9FYAUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">We are organizational</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=iv8X37AAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scientists</a> who are interested in how makeup calls operate. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=-TnT6tYAAAAJ">With</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ATbRISoAAAAJ&hl=en">our</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=M8oboDQAAAAJ">colleagues</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=orWHs5EAAAAJ">we</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=zh-TW&user=qRDqxYkAAAAJ">explored</a> this question in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001026">research we published in 2022</a> in the Journal of Applied Psychology.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Umpire gesturing while calling a strike" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486653/original/file-20220926-16-o1ik9u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What happens after an ump makes a bad call?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/umpire-calling-strike-royalty-free-image/79248503">Score by Aflo/Getty Images Plus via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Setting things right once mistakes are made</h2>
<p>Examining MLB playoff data from 2008-2014, we found that bad calls increased the likelihood of makeup calls. That is, when an umpire made an objectively erroneous call, it increased the chances of subsequent calls in favor of the team that was harmed.</p>
<p>For instance, when bad calls were made against pitchers, umpires were then more likely to call strikes. We also found that umpires became less likely to call strikes on a batter if they’d made bad calls against the batter’s teammates.</p>
<p>But as the stakes increased – meaning the call had greater importance to the overall outcome of the game – makeup calls became less likely. Makeup calls seemed to be aimed at righting prior wrongs and correcting for some level of unfairness, but not so much that they would have an impact on which team actually won or lost. </p>
<h2>Makeup calls in the psychology lab</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001026">To investigate whether this tendency</a> toward the makeup call extends beyond Major League Baseball, we invited undergraduate volunteers into our lab. We paired them off and gave them a set of jars each containing random objects like bolts, screws and so on.</p>
<p>One student was the decision-maker and guessed if the number of objects in the jar was greater or less than 300. The second student was the judge and evaluated the other student’s decision based on their own estimation. The decision-maker received raffle tickets each time the judge sided with them, and judges received raffle tickets when they were correct in their evaluation of the decision-maker.</p>
<p>When judges received feedback that they had erred in their evaluation, they were more likely to make subsequent calls in favor of the decision-makers. Just as we saw in the big leagues, as the stakes increased – in this case, the odds of winning the raffle got better with each ticket awarded – makeup calls decreased. However, as the number of people affected by the bad call rose, so did the likelihood of makeup calls.</p>
<p>We also identified the critical role that guilt plays in makeup calls. Those who made a bad call reported feeling more guilty in a survey and then sought to rectify their mistake by issuing a makeup call. Hence those who experience more guilt were more likely to issue make-up calls.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Person with head in hand looking at laptop with downward trending graph" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/486655/original/file-20220926-16-4w6fqf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Financial analysts influence the decisions people make about buying and selling stocks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/pensive-and-sad-man-watching-the-graph-crash-royalty-free-image/1389538724">Ricardo Mendoza Garbayo/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Bad calls with bigger stakes</h2>
<p>As when we focused on MLB umpires, our lab study relied on a game-ified context. To determine if what we saw translated to the real world, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001026">examined the judgments of financial analysts</a>. We looked at their recommendations about which companies’ stocks, in their judgment, should be bought or sold. And we looked at their earnings forecasts that predict how they think individual stocks will perform.</p>
<p>When a firm performs worse than the analysts expected, or missed their earning expectation, the firm’s stock declines. In this way, analysts who are overly optimistic about a firm and provide an inflated earnings forecast may unintentionally harm a firm.</p>
<p>In response to an extreme earnings miss – meaning the firm performance was 50% or more worse than the analyst’s expectation – analysts can either devalue the company, resulting in a downgrade, or double down on their optimism and provide an upgrade. Given the firm’s extreme underperformance, providing an upgrade is likely an illogical choice – but it may make up for the damage done to the stock. Thus analyst forecasts and recommendations provide an optimal way for our research to capture makeup calls. </p>
<p>We found that when an analyst’s forecast significantly overestimated a company’s earnings, analysts were 73% more likely to then upgrade their recommendation. In other words, when a firm performed much worse than the analyst expected, they were more likely to recommend buying the stock rather than selling it, even though a downgrade makes more sense in this scenario. Analysts were more likely to issue a makeup call by upgrading the stock, issuing a buy recommendation that was too optimistic for a stock that underperformed expectations by at least 50%.</p>
<h2>Not something people want to talk about</h2>
<p>Finally, we wanted to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001026">assess people’s everyday experiences of makeup calls</a> on the job. How aware are people of making bad calls and makeup calls, and how do they feel about these decisions when they happen at work?</p>
<p>We asked managers to recall a time when they made a decision or a bad call. Far fewer people were willing to admit they’d ever made a bad call, even when explicitly asked, compared to those who were willing to say they’d made a decision. We weren’t surprised, since people generally prefer to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/smarter-living/why-its-so-hard-to-admit-youre-wrong.html">avoid admitting or discussing their mistakes</a>.</p>
<p>This aversion seems to have extended to makeup calls as well. Those who did admit to making a bad call were not more or less likely to admit that they’d ever made a makeup call, even if they acknowledged feeling guilty for their mistake.</p>
<p>Most of our studies suggest that people do often fall back on makeup calls after an error in judgment. However, people get a little squirrelly when asked about those experiences and tend not to own up to this kind of make-it-right action.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/188968/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Erroneous calls increase the chances of subsequent calls in favor of the person who was harmed. What drives this behavior, and do people even recognize they’re doing it?Steven J. Hyde, Assistant Professor of Management, Boise State UniversityMeghan Thornton-Lugo, Assistant Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology, University of AkronLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1805412022-05-12T18:44:27Z2022-05-12T18:44:27ZThe idea that power poses boost your confidence fell from favor – but a new review of the research calls for a second look<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462476/original/file-20220511-25-1kzokh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=745%2C8%2C5245%2C3727&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After great popularity, the idea of power poses came under fire.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-in-superhero-costume-royalty-free-image/1140379193">Choreograph/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you stand like Wonder Woman or Superman, will you feel stronger? Will you actually be stronger?</p>
<p>Psychology researchers have investigated these questions for decades. After all, mind and body are intertwined. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992249">How you stand or sit can give you feedback</a> on how you feel, and your feelings are often revealed by the way you hold yourself. </p>
<p>One influential study published in 2010 suggested that power poses – body positions like a wide stance with your hands on your hips while standing, or clasping your hands behind your head and putting your feet on a desk while sitting – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437">increased levels of the male sex hormone testosterone</a> and decreased levels of cortisol, the main stress hormone. High levels of testosterone and low levels of cortisol are linked to fearlessness, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2010.08.020">risk-taking</a> and insensitivity to punishment. From there, scientists assumed that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614566855">power posing could affect how people felt</a>, how they acted and <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01463">how others perceived them</a>.</p>
<p>These findings drew enormous attention outside of the lab. <a href="https://www.littlebrownspark.com/titles/amy-cuddy/presence/9780316256551/">Power posing was advertised</a> as a way of improving one’s life, and the idea took off in popular culture. Intentionally adopting the stance of a powerful person could apparently give you the confidence and the appearance of a powerful person.</p>
<p>But in the following years, some researchers could not replicate the original findings when they tried to rerun the experiments. The lead author of the original study <a href="https://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/dana_carney/pdf_my%20position%20on%20power%20poses.pdf">admitted to mistakes and distanced herself from it</a>. Since then, there’s been a heated debate about whether engaging in power poses really does anything at all.</p>
<p>In an effort to figure out which power pose findings hold up and which do not, <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2022-61115-003?doi=1">we conducted a meta-analytic review</a> – that is, we combined data from all available research on the topic. Based on dozens of studies, we suggest that there is something to the idea of power poses, even if the research was overhyped in the past.</p>
<h2>Pulling together findings from 88 studies</h2>
<p>We focused on two types of body positions.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="girl seated on couch gets lecture from a woman" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=816&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=816&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=816&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1026&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1026&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462478/original/file-20220511-6370-675uv2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1026&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A low-power pose may look similar to a child receiving a reprimand.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/mother-lecturing-daughter-in-living-room-royalty-free-image/107697790">JGI/Jamie Grill/Tetra images via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The first type included power poses. Examples of high-power poses would be standing or sitting in a very expansive way, taking up a lot of space. A low-power pose would be crossing your legs and folding your arms while standing, or bowing your head and putting your hands on your lap while seated.</p>
<p>The second type included upright postures, like standing erect or sitting up straight in a chair versus bowing your head and slumping. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12559">Theoretical</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000181">empirical</a> research have suggested that power poses are nonverbal expressions of dominance, whereas upright postures are displays of prestige. </p>
<p>Following open-science standards, we <a href="https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CX2Q3">preregistered our protocol</a> with the Open Science Framework before conducting the analysis. This step is meant to increase transparency. By stating the game plan upfront, you can’t fiddle around with the data to try to find something significant to report.</p>
<p>Then we combed through 12 scientific databases with search terms including “body position” and “power pose.” This hunt turned up over 24,000 potentially relevant studies. We included just the ones that randomly assigned participants to different groups. Only this <a href="https://itfeature.com/design-of-experiment-doe/basic-principles-of-experimental-design">experimental design</a> allows researchers to make inferences about the cause of any effects they identify.</p>
<p>Often if a study doesn’t find a link between the the factors it was investigating, the research doesn’t end up getting published. Because of this phenomenon, called <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215052">publication bias</a>, we sent requests for unpublished data to researchers from six different scientific societies. We also contacted all 21 researchers who had authored at least two articles on body positions to inquire whether they had any unpublished studies. Over one-fourth of the effects we analyzed came from unpublished studies.</p>
<p>In the end, our analysis of high- versus low-power poses and upright versus slumped poses was based on 313 effects from 88 studies that included 9,799 participants. </p>
<h2>What held up and what didn’t</h2>
<p>Our review examined three types of potential effects power poses and upright positions could have.</p>
<p>First there were self-reported effects, such as feeling powerful, confident and positive. These kinds of effects were statistically significant and robust, meaning they were seen again and again across many studies. People told researchers they felt stronger when they engaged in power poses and upright postures.</p>
<p>Then there were behavioral effects, such as how long participants would stick with a task, whether they exhibited antisocial behavior, and how action-oriented they were. Researchers identified these effects in many studies as well, but the findings were less reliable and more subject to publication bias.</p>
<p>Finally there were physiological effects such as hormone levels, heart rate and skin conductance, which often stands in as a way to measure stress in psychology research studies. In our meta-analysis, these effects were not statistically significant across all the studies. It was in this area that the power pose research didn’t hold up. Simply taking expansive body positions does not influence hormones or other physiological indicators as previously believed.</p>
<p>We found these self-reported and behavioral effects in studies from both Western countries like the U.S., Germany and the U.K. that favor the individual and in Eastern countries like China, Japan and Malaysia that favor the collective. Age and gender did not make a difference with respect to the effects. Nor did it matter whether participants were college students or not. From the available data it is not clear, however, how long such effects last after someone moves out of a particular body position.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman seated at her desk smiles with her legs open and arms wide on arm rests" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/462479/original/file-20220511-15-9qbhu7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Taking up space can be an expression of dominance.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-posing-by-her-desk-at-home-office-royalty-free-image/499236621">Lucy Lambriex/The Image Bank via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What new experiments can explore</h2>
<p>Unfortunately, many experimental studies in our meta-analysis did not include a control group of participants who adopted a neutral body position. That means we can’t tell for sure whether it is high-power poses and upright postures making people feel more positive and powerful, whether it is the low-power and slumped postures making people feel less positive and powerful, or whether it is some combination of the two. Future studies could clarify that question by including control groups that hold neutral body positions for comparison.</p>
<p>Furthermore, most studies included participants from Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic societies – characterized as “WEIRD” by psychology researchers. Effects should also be tested in other populations.</p>
<p>To promote and facilitate further insights on the effects of body positions, we also created an <a href="https://metaanalyses.shinyapps.io/bodypositions/">app</a> allowing researchers to enter new data and download the most recent results. Continuing these investigations is important, because science is an ongoing process that usually does not provide definitive final answers. More evidence accumulates with each new study.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180541/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For a while it was all the rage to adopt Wonder Woman’s famous stance and other body positions that allegedly pumped up your confidence – until more studies of the phenomenon failed to find the connection.Astrid Schütz, Professor of Psychology, University of BambergBrad Bushman, Professor of Communication and Rinehart Chair of Mass Communication, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1785252022-03-23T12:35:14Z2022-03-23T12:35:14ZAn emphasis on brilliance creates a toxic, dog-eat-dog workplace atmosphere that discourages women<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453088/original/file-20220318-15-sgs1e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=544%2C352%2C4568%2C3050&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Zero-sum competitive environments that set up winners and losers may be less appealing to women.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/businessmen-runnin-g-on-track-royalty-free-image/138585509">Photo and Co/The Image Bank via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em> </p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Workplaces that emphasize brilliance are perceived to have a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289">masculine work culture</a> that undermines gender diversity, according to a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211044133">new investigation</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=IJj4sPUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I</a> conducted with colleagues <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-DZfNWIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Andrei Cimpian</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9FWBle8AAAAJ&hl=en">Melis Muradoglu</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=3Exv3SEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">George Newman</a>.</p>
<p>We wanted to understand why women are underrepresented in fields that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375">prize raw intellectual talent</a> – what some people call “brilliance.” This includes many academic disciplines, such as philosophy, mathematics and economics, and industries like information technology. Despite the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104020">stereotype equating brilliance with men</a>, women’s continued underrepresentation in these fields is not due to gender differences in intellectual ability. For instance, <a href="http://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-states-gifted-education">girls are about half of the gifted student population</a> in the U.S. Why do fewer women go on to enter these professions?</p>
<p>Our research identifies a possible reason. We asked academics in more than 30 fields to reflect on their own disciplines, and we conducted two additional experiments with laypeople. We found someone who believed brilliance was required for success in academia and other professional contexts was more likely to perceive these work environments as having a “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289">masculinity contest culture</a>” – a dog-eat-dog atmosphere of ruthless competition that glorifies the more negative aspects of masculinity, like aggression.</p>
<p>To thrive or even survive in these work cultures, employees must appear tough, conceal any weakness, put work above all else, be willing to step on others, and constantly watch their backs.</p>
<p>Our research suggests that it’s not the emphasis on brilliance that discourages women from some work spheres, but rather the aggressively competitive culture that seems to come along with it. The demands of a masculinity contest culture affect all workers. But traditionally <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066">women are taught to be modest, kind and cooperative</a>. So they may find such a work culture much less appealing or encounter more difficulties navigating it, potentially explaining persistent gender gaps in brilliance-oriented professions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="two dogs snarling at one another" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/453183/original/file-20220321-19-dnjik0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Rather than lacking the brilliance necessary to compete, women may prefer to steer clear of toxic dog-eat-dog work cultures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/high-angle-view-of-dogs-snarling-on-field-royalty-free-image/677136407">Silvia Hohaus/EyeEm via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>The persistent gender gaps in disciplines where brilliance is prized continue to be of <a href="https://www.unwomen.org/en/news-stories/in-focus/2022/02/in-focus-international-day-of-women-and-girls-in-science">great concern</a> to academic institutions, policymakers and the public.</p>
<p>Our findings shed new light on a key reason this focus on brilliance is so harmful: It apparently gives rise to a negative workplace culture that is discouraging to women. And for both women and men in our study, the perception of a masculinity contest culture was associated with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000669">feeling like an impostor who does not belong</a>.</p>
<p>The results of our experiment illuminate possible ways to address gender gaps in fields that prize brilliance. For instance, we asked participants to imagine they had an acquaintance who works at a brilliance-oriented company. When the imaginary acquaintance described the work environment as a masculinity contest culture, women were less interested than men in applying for a job at this company, and more likely to expect they wouldn’t belong there.</p>
<p>But if the acquaintance described a cooperative company culture where employees “have each others’ backs,” men and women were equally interested in working there. Nothing changed in what our participants knew about the company’s emphasis on brilliance. Changing how the culture was described was enough to eliminate gender gaps in interest and sense of belonging.</p>
<p>Our research focuses on just one part of why women are underrepresented in many fields – additionally, there may be <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000427">biases that block women’s access</a> or a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2011.620935">lack of effective role models</a>, among <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220980092">other factors</a> at play.</p>
<h2>What’s next</h2>
<p>People often equate competition with high quality – believing that, in a battle for success, the best ideas will rise to the top. But masculinity contest cultures entail a zero-sum noncooperative mentality that does not necessarily drive excellence. Of course, competition in itself need not be a bad thing; but <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12280">everybody suffers</a> in a culture focused on attaining status and dominance at any cost.</p>
<p>Rather than trying to revise <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375">deep-rooted beliefs about the value of brilliance</a>, it may be more fruitful to change workplace cultures, setting strong norms that curb competition for intellectual dominance and that favor free exchange and openness.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178525/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrea Vial does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A focus on raw intellectual talent may unintentionally create a cutthroat workplace culture. New research suggests women’s preference to avoid that environment may contribute to gender gaps in some fields.Andrea Vial, Assistant Professor of Psychology, New York UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1755962022-02-15T13:23:45Z2022-02-15T13:23:45ZTrust comes when you admit what you don’t know – lessons from child development research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446357/original/file-20220214-23-1v7o8t3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=283%2C55%2C4760%2C3163&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Kids figure out who's trustworthy as they learn about the world.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/father-and-young-son-portrait-royalty-free-image/117456173">Sandro Di Carlo Darsa/PhotoAlto Agency RF Collections via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Consider the following situation: Two experts give you advice about whether you should eat or avoid the fat in common cooking oils.</p>
<p>One of them tells you confidently that there are “good” or “bad” fats, so you can eat some oils and not others. The other is more hesitant, saying the science is mixed and it depends on the individual and the situation, so probably just best to avoid them all until more evidence is available, or see your doctor to find out what is best for you.</p>
<p>Whose advice do you follow?</p>
<p>Neither one of these experts is factually incorrect. But the confident source likely has some additional appeal. Research suggests that people are more likely to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000471">follow advice delivered with confidence</a> and to reject advice delivered with hesitancy or uncertainty.</p>
<p>During the pandemic, public health officials <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2022/02/pandemic-communications-public-health/622044/">have seemed to operate on this assumption</a> – that confidence conveys expertise, leadership and authority and is necessary to get people to trust you. But <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892">public health recommendations about COVID-19</a> are complicated by the rapidly changing scientific understanding of the disease and its spread. Each time there’s new information, some of the old knowledge becomes obsolete and is replaced.</p>
<p>Over the course of the pandemic, Pew Research Center polling has found that the percentage of Americans who <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2022/02/09/increasing-public-criticism-confusion-over-covid-19-response-in-u-s/">feel confused and less confident</a> in public health officials’ recommendations because of changing guidelines has grown.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="masked man and woman stand with American flag" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446359/original/file-20220214-97814-189drvl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky have needed to update advice as the pandemic continues.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/dr-anthony-fauci-director-of-the-national-institute-of-news-photo/1361356289">Anna Moneymaker via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a landscape of constantly changing science, is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317504111">communicating with total confidence</a> the best way to win public trust? Maybe not. Our research suggests that, in many cases, people trust those who are willing to say “I don’t know.”</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=TMuSMXoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">We are</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=DxmHk08AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">psychological</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ibmI_W0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scientists</a> who study the emergence, in childhood, of what is termed “epistemic trust” – which is trusting that someone is a knowledgeable and reliable source of information. Infants learn to trust their caregivers for other reasons – attachment bonds are formed based on love and consistent care. </p>
<p>But, from the time children are 3 or 4 years old, they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00334">also begin to trust people</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034191">based on what they claim to know</a>. In other words, from early in life our minds separate the love-and-care kind of trust from <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674503830">the sort of trust you need</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849.x">to get reliable, accurate information</a> that helps you learn about the world. These are the origins of adult trust in experts – and in science.</p>
<h2>Observing trust in the lab</h2>
<p>The setup of our lab studies with kids is similar to our starting example above: Kids meet people and learn facts from them. One person sounds confident and the other sounds uncertain. The children in our studies are still in preschool, so we use simple “lessons” appropriate to the age group, often involving teaching children new made-up vocabulary words. We’re able to vary things about the “teachers” and see how children respond differently.</p>
<p>For instance, in the lab we find that children’s brain activity and learning are responsive to differences in tone between confidence and uncertainty. If you teach a 4-year-old a new word with confidence, they will learn it in one shot. But if you say “hmm, I’m not sure, I think this is called a …,” something changes.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12544">Electrical activity in the brain shows</a> that children both remember the event and learn the word when someone teaches with confidence. When someone communicates uncertainty, they remember the event but don’t learn the word. </p>
<p>If a speaker says they are unsure, it can actually help a listener separate memory of a specific thing they heard from facts they think must be widely known.</p>
<h2>Effects of acknowledging uncertainty</h2>
<p>In addition to forming accurate impressions in your memory, communicated uncertainty also helps you learn about cases that are uncertain by their nature. Disease transmission is one of these cases.</p>
<p>Our research shows that even 5-year-old children learn about uncertain data better from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2021.105183">someone who expresses that uncertainty outright</a> than someone who is confident that things will always work the same way.</p>
<p>In this study, kids saw cause-and-effect relations – objects turned on a music machine. Some objects (black ones) always made it go, others (yellow ones) never made it go, and still others made it go sometimes. For instance, red objects were 66% effective, and white objects were 33% effective. </p>
<p>One group of kids heard a contrast between red and white objects communicated with too much certainty: “Red ones make it go and white ones do not.” Later, kids in this group were confused when they had to distinguish these uncertain causes from more certain black and yellow ones. </p>
<p>Another group of kids heard the contrast communicated with uncertainty: “Maybe the red ones sometimes make it go, and the white ones sometimes do not.” Kids in this group were not confused. They learned that these objects were effective only sometimes, and they could distinguish them from objects that were always or never effective.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="close-up of woman listening to young boy" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/446360/original/file-20220214-112758-fjid2f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Children become skeptical of adults who are mixed up but confident.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/little-boy-uses-sign-language-to-talk-to-a-woman-royalty-free-image/1318193583">Catherine Falls Commercial/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Overconfidence undermines trust</h2>
<p>The studies above show that appropriately communicated uncertainty can influence trust in the short term. But pandemic communication is complicated mainly because no one can predict what information will change in the future. What is better in the long term – admitting what you don’t know, or being confident about information that might change?</p>
<p>[<em>Research into coronavirus and other news from science</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?nl=science&source=inline-science-corona-research">Subscribe to The Conversation’s new science newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>In a recent study, we showed that over the long term, when you have a chance of being wrong, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000294">too much confidence carries risk</a>. One group of 4-year-olds saw an adult who admitted not knowing the names for common objects: a ball, a book, a cup. Another group saw an adult who claimed to know what the objects were called but got them all wrong – for example, calling a ball “a shoe.”</p>
<p>When the adult admitted ignorance, 4-year-olds were willing to keep learning all sorts of things from them, even more words. But when the adult was confident and inaccurate, she lost all credibility. Even when children knew she could help them find a hidden toy, they wouldn’t trust her to tell them where it was.</p>
<h2>Safeguarding trust by saying ‘I don’t know’</h2>
<p>The lesson from our research is that speaking with confidence about information that will likely change is a bigger threat to earning trust than expressing uncertainty. When health officials confidently enact a policy at one time, and then confidently enact a different, even contradictory, policy later on, they are acting like the “unreliable informants” in our studies. </p>
<p>Public health communication can have two goals. One is to get people to act fast and follow best practices based on what’s known now. A second is to gain the sustained, long-term trust of the public so that when fast action is needed, people have faith that they are doing the right thing by following guidelines. Rhetoric that is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892">designed to convey certainty</a> in hopes of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211063628">earning widespread compliance</a> may be counterproductive if it risks mortgaging the long-term trust of the public.</p>
<p>While we recognize the difficulty of communicating in uncertain times, and doing so to an increasingly polarized public, we think it’s important to heed the lessons from the earliest psychology of trust. </p>
<p>The good news is that, based on our research, we believe the human mind doesn’t balk at hearing communicated uncertainty – quite the opposite. Our minds and brains are made to handle the occasional “I think so,” “I’m not sure” or “I don’t know.” In fact, our ability to do this emerges early in child development and is a cornerstone of our ability to learn from others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175596/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tamar Kushnir receives funding from NSF, NIH, John Templeton Foundation and the Dept. of Agriculture.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dave Sobel receives funding from NSF.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Sabbagh receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. </span></em></p>People often try to seem confident and certain in their message so it will be trusted and acted upon. But when information is in flux, research suggests you should be open about what you don’t know.Tamar Kushnir, Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke UniversityDavid Sobel, Professor of Cognitive, Linguistic & Psychological Sciences, Brown UniversityMark Sabbagh, Professor of Psychology, Queen's University, OntarioLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1705182021-11-02T12:26:47Z2021-11-02T12:26:47ZGo ahead, enjoy your memes – they really do help ease pandemic stress<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429639/original/file-20211101-17-lutbi3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=843%2C168%2C4271%2C3236&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A mini break with a humorous meme can take the momentary edge off during a stressful time.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/mixed-race-nurse-using-cell-phone-in-hospital-royalty-free-image/606353095">JGI/Tom Grill</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Zoom meeting after Zoom meeting, while trying to feed, entertain and beg-to-sleep an infant whose day care had closed, I needed a break but couldn’t really take one in April of 2020.</p>
<p>Enter memes. Between work, moving the laundry and taking care of my own dogs, I could sneak a peak at Instagram and chuckle at <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/05/01/funny-dogs-coronavirus-quarantine-moos-ebof-pkg.cnn">images of very excited pups</a>, psyched that their humans were now home all day, every day. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=zuTHbzoAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I study media processes and effects</a>, which is the psychology of how media messages can affect you. As the pandemic dragged on, I got more and more interested in how people were using social media – and memes featuring cute and funny pics, in particular – as a way to think and communicate with others about life during a global pandemic.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="gratified looking kid clenches fist" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/429591/original/file-20211101-19-ivtutt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The popular ‘Success Kid’ meme repurposed with a pandemic message.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://imgflip.com/i/4k1taa">imgflip</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.wired.co.uk/article/richard-dawkins-memes">Memes are little units of culture</a> that spread from one person to the next. They have existed since long before the birth of the internet, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article/18/3/362/4067545?login=true">but digital technology adds new dimensions</a>, given the ease of creating, editing and sharing memes online. Popular internet memes often develop their own names, such as “<a href="https://www.wired.com/story/distracted-boyfriend-meme-photographer-interview/">Distracted Boyfriend</a>,” “<a href="https://www.thefader.com/2018/04/03/squat-and-squint-meme-woman">Squinting Woman</a>” and “<a href="https://stacker.com/stories/2650/50-famous-memes-and-what-they-mean">Handshakes</a>.”</p>
<p>I partnered with colleagues <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Vj2kbFkAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Robin Nabi</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bY-MeC0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Nicholas Eng</a> to investigate the potential effect of mini meme breaks on people’s <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/report">pandemic stress and emotions</a>. </p>
<h2>A meme experiment</h2>
<p>The first step in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000371">our research</a> was combing through hundreds of real memes we found in the wild on social media. We asked participants to rate them for how funny and cute they were, as well as how authentic they seemed as popular internet memes.</p>
<p>Using that data, we developed two pools of memes using the same images: One set had captions about COVID-19 and another set had captions unrelated to COVID-19. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1243507031480373248"}"></div></p>
<p>In our main study, we recruited nearly 800 participants to view a series of images using online survey software. One group saw the COVID-19 memes, while a second group saw the memes not about COVID-19. A third group saw image-free plain text that summarized the general idea of the memes, but was not in the least bit funny.</p>
<p>Then, no matter which set of content our participants saw, everyone next answered questions about how they felt in that moment. We asked particularly about how they felt about COVID-19 and their ability to cope with pandemic stress.</p>
<h2>Memes as mood boosters</h2>
<p>People who viewed just three memes rated themselves on a 1-7 scale as calmer, more content and more amused compared with people who didn’t see the memes. For instance, people who saw memes scored, on average, a 4.71 on our positive emotions scale, compared with an average of 3.85 for those who did not see a meme. In short, viewing a few cute or funny memes – regardless of their topic – provided a quick boost of positive emotion for many people. </p>
<iframe id="reddit-embed" src="https://www.redditmedia.com/r/memes/comments/i0if7b/me_when_i_order_a_pizza_during_the_pandemic/?ref_source=embed&ref=share&embed=true" sandbox="allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups" style="border: none;" height="431" width="100%" scrolling="no"></iframe>
<p>Moreover, we found that participants who rated themselves higher on the positive emotion scale were also more likely to feel confident in their ability to handle the stress associated with living through a global pandemic. There seems to be value in reframing something that is constantly stressful and scary into a more approachable topic by using humor.</p>
<p>The topic of the memes mattered. People who viewed memes about COVID-19 rated themselves as less stressed about life during a global pandemic. Those who saw COVID-19-related memes also reported thinking more deeply about the memes and their meaning – what media psychologists call “<a href="https://www.simplypsychology.org/information-processing.html">information processing</a>.” More information processing was related to more confidence in their abilities to handle pandemic-related stress. It’s possible that exerting more effort thinking about the topic could lead to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.9.1175">mentally rehearsing ways to cope</a> with the related stress, instead of avoiding it entirely. </p>
<p>This work adds to a growing body of research demonstrating that people use media to help them deal with stress. For example, my collaborator Robin Nabi has found <a href="https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000223">in previous work</a> that using media – whether television, books or social media – is one of the top strategies for managing stress. In her surveys of college students and breast cancer patients, people who choose media for stress management reported it as an effective way to cope. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="InstagramEmbed" data-react-props="{"url":"https://www.instagram.com/p/B-IE5sUFeaf","accessToken":"127105130696839|b4b75090c9688d81dfd245afe6052f20"}"></div></p>
<p>Together, these studies suggest that media use is not always <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.613368">the stress-inducing experience</a> or <a href="https://www.wired.com/insights/2015/02/is-social-media-a-waste-of-time/">waste of time</a> that it is sometimes portrayed to be. Instead, it likely depends on the specific type of media message you are consuming, the type of person you are and the situation in which you are consuming it.</p>
<p>The pandemic, with its accompanying restrictions on travel, work and socializing, has been <a href="https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2021/02/adults-stress-pandemic">an uncommonly stressful time</a>. Taking a break to view and share bits of cute or funny pop culture commentary in the form of COVID-19-related memes can be a quick and easy way to connect with others and address pandemic stress head on through laughter.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/170518/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jessica Myrick does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Social media during the pandemic is not all doom scrolling and despair. Lighter memes have psychological benefits.Jessica Myrick, Professor of Media Studies, Penn StateLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1696002021-10-28T12:35:20Z2021-10-28T12:35:20ZNew research suggests cat and dog ‘moms’ and ‘dads’ really are parenting their pets – here’s the evolutionary explanation why<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428894/original/file-20211027-25-175dg5l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1036%2C201%2C5341%2C4174&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Pet parenting can provide love and companionship to both human and animal.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/senior-black-woman-patting-the-family-dog-royalty-free-image/1190823862">Willie B. Thomas/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="old pug dog in a stroller and harness" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=887&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=887&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=887&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1114&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1114&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428877/original/file-20211027-19-iseyr8.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1114&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A pup out for a stroll, without paws touching the ground.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shelly Volsche</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Have you noticed more cats riding in strollers lately? Or bumper stickers that read, “I love my granddogs”? You’re not imagining it. More people are investing serious <a href="https://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp">time, money and attention in their pets</a>.</p>
<p>It looks an awful lot like parenting, but of pets, not people.</p>
<p>Can this kind of caregiving toward animals really be considered parenting? Or is something else going on here?</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JxdDd8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I’m an anthropologist</a> who studies human-animal interactions, a field known as anthrozoology. I want to better understand the behavior of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049211038297">pet parenting by people from the perspective of evolutionary science</a>. After all, cultural norms and evolutionary biology both suggest people should focus on raising their own children, not animals of a completely different species.</p>
<h2>More child-free people, more pet parents</h2>
<p>The current moment is unique in human history. Many societies, including the U.S., are experiencing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1420441111">major changes in how people live, work and socialize</a>. Fertility rates are low, and people have more flexibility in how they choose to live their lives. These factors can lead people to further their education and value <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0163-2396(08)30011-8">defining oneself as an individual</a> over family obligations. With basics taken care of, people can focus on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346">higher order psychological needs</a> like feelings of achievement and a sense of purpose.</p>
<p>The scene is set for people to actively choose to focus on pets instead of children.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2018.1455470">earlier research</a>, I interviewed 28 self-identified <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/child-free">child-free</a> pet owners to better understand how they relate to their animals. These individuals pointedly shared that they had actively chosen cats and dogs instead of children. In many cases, their use of parent-child relational terms – calling themselves a pet’s “mom” for instance – was simply shorthand.</p>
<p>They emphasized fulfilling the species-specific needs of their dogs and cats. For example, they might fulfill the animal’s need to forage by feeding meals using a <a href="https://nymag.com/strategist/article/best-food-puzzles-for-cats-and-dogs-according-to-vets.html">food puzzle</a>, while most children are fed at the table. These pet owners acknowledged differences in the nutrition, socialization and learning needs of animals versus children. They were not unthinkingly replacing human children with “fur babies” by treating them like small, furry humans.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman with party hat with dog" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428895/original/file-20211027-25-gc1jv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pet parents might celebrate their dog’s big day – but with a doggy treat and not chocolate cake.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/girl-and-her-dog-celebrating-dogs-first-birthday-royalty-free-image/1138504716">fotostorm/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other researchers find similar connections, showing that child-free pet owners <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12351">perceive their companions as emotional, thinking individuals</a>. This way of understanding the mind of the animal helps lead to the development of a parent identity toward companion animals. In other cases, uncertain individuals find their need to nurture sufficiently fulfilled by caring for pets, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12163">cementing their fertility decisions to remain child-free</a>.</p>
<h2>Nurturing others is part of being human</h2>
<p>Yet, these findings still do not answer this question: Are people who choose pets over children truly parenting their pets? To answer, I turned to the evolution of parenting and caregiving.</p>
<p>Evolutionary anthropologist Sarah Hrdy wrote in 2009 that <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674060326&content=reviews">humans are cooperative breeders</a>. This means it is literally in our DNA and our ancestral history to help care for offspring who are not our own. Anthropologists and biologists call this trait <a href="https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alloparent">alloparenting</a>. It is an evolutionary adaptation that helped human beings who cooperatively raised children survive. For early humans, this ancient environment was likely made up of small, foraging societies in which some people <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-008-9043-3">exchanged child care for food and other resources</a>.</p>
<p>I propose that it is this evolutionary history that explains pet parenting. If people evolved to alloparent, and our environment is now making caring for children more difficult or less appealing to some, it makes sense for people to alloparent other species entering their homes. Alloparenting companion animals can offer a way to fulfill the evolved need to nurture while reducing the investment of time, money and emotional energy compared to raising children.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="two kids and dog bathing in tub" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428898/original/file-20211027-25073-17nbg9g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Do people relate to animals differently in families with children?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/two-brothers-take-a-bath-with-the-dog-royalty-free-image/1124427115">Mayte Torres/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Untangling differences in caring for pets</h2>
<p>To further understand this phenomenon of child-free adults parenting pets, I launched an online survey via social media, seeking responses from U.S.-based dog and cat owners over the age of 18. The survey included questions about attachment and caregiving behaviors using the <a href="https://doi.org/10.2752/089279392787011395">Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale</a>. It also asked a series of questions I developed to probe specific human caretaking behaviors oriented toward pets – things like feeding, bathing and training – as well as how much autonomy companion animals had in the home.</p>
<p>The final sample of 917 respondents included 620 parents, 254 nonparents and 43 people who were undecided or did not answer. Most of the respondents were also married or in a domestic partnership for over one year (57%), between the ages of 25 and 60 (72%) and had at least a bachelor’s degree (77%). They were also mostly women (85%) and heterosexual (85%), a <a href="https://doi.org/10.2752/089279307780216687">common situation in human-animal interactions research</a>.</p>
<p>Both parents and nonparents reported high amounts of training and play with their pets. This finding makes sense given that all pet owners need to help their dogs and cats learn how to navigate a human world. Survey respondents reported socializing, training and enrichment, including play, for their animals.</p>
<p>Nonparents were more likely to be the one providing general care for the animal. This finding also makes sense since parents often adopt or purchase companion animals as a way to <a href="https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo19416930.html">help their children</a> learn responsibility and to care for others. Child-free animal owners invest time, money and emotional energy directly in their pets.</p>
<p>Nonparents reported higher rates of general attachment to their animals. They more frequently viewed their pets as individuals. Nonparents were also more likely to use family terms such as “parent,” “child,” “kids” and “guardians” when referring to their relationships with their pet.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman on couch petting cat" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=365&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/428899/original/file-20211027-19-bxtxen.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=458&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Caring for another being can be fulfilling and rewarding.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/its-just-me-and-you-today-kitty-royalty-free-image/1187591570">Delmaine Donson/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It is this difference, combined with the evidence from my earlier research that these individuals address the species-specific needs of the dogs and cats in their care, that suggests pet parenting is, truly, parenting pets. Though the details may look quite different – attending training classes instead of school functions, or providing smell walks for dogs instead of coloring books for children – both practices fulfill the same evolved function. Whether child or pet, people are meeting the same evolved need to care for, teach and love a sentient other.</p>
<p>My colleagues and I continue to collect data from all over the world about how people live with animals. For now, this study provides evidence that, perhaps rather than being evolved to parent, humans are evolved to nurture. And as a result, who and when we parent is much more flexible than you might initially believe.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169600/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shelly Volsche does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Human beings evolved to nurture – and that drive can extend to children who aren’t your own and even to members of other species.Shelly Volsche, Clinical Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Boise State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1658632021-09-22T12:59:42Z2021-09-22T12:59:42ZPsychological ‘specialness spirals’ can make ordinary items feel like treasures – and may explain how clutter accumulates<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422466/original/file-20210921-27-s2ispq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C350%2C4641%2C3372&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The longer you hold off on using an everyday purchase, the more likely you are to preserve it untouched.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/finding-that-perfect-outfit-royalty-free-image/643534884">kupicoo/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Years ago, I bought a blouse at Target. That same day, I considered putting it on, but for no particular reason decided not to. That weekend, I again considered wearing the blouse, but the occasion didn’t seem good enough, so again, I passed. A week later, I considered the blouse for a date, but again, the event didn’t seem special enough.</p>
<p>Fast forward to today. I have never worn my Target blouse. What had started out as ordinary now holds a special place in my closet, and no occasion feels quite worthy of my wearing it.</p>
<p>What happened here? Why do people own so many unused possessions, treating them as though they are too special to use?</p>
<p>I’m an <a href="https://bloch.umkc.edu/faculty-directory-rifkin-jacqueline/">assistant professor of marketing</a>, and these are the questions that inspired <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/714363">my latest research</a> with <a href="https://marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/jberger/">Jonah Berger</a>, an associate professor of marketing.</p>
<p>In six experiments, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/714363">we uncovered one important reason</a> why people can accumulate so many ordinary possessions without ever using or getting rid of them: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/678302">nonconsumption</a>, or the act of not using something.</p>
<p>When people decide not to use something at one point in time, the item can start to feel more special. And as it feels more special, they want to protect it and are less likely to want to use it in the future. This accrual of specialness can be one explanation for how possessions accumulate and turn into unused clutter.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="hand with pen poised above empty notebook pages" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=392&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422445/original/file-20210921-17-g1fh7m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When is the right time to make the first marks in a fresh new notebook?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-writes-in-notebook-royalty-free-image/1289092612">Grace Cary/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>We first invited 121 participants to the lab and gave each one a fresh notebook. We asked half the people to solve word puzzles that required writing – they could either use their brand new notebook, or scrap paper. The other half completed puzzles on the computer. Later in the lab session, all participants encountered a puzzle that required writing, and they could either use their notebook or scrap paper.</p>
<p>Interestingly, participants who had the initial opportunity to use the notebook, but hadn’t, were significantly less likely to use the notebook later in the session, versus those who hadn’t had the option. And this finding was not limited just to notebooks. We saw the same pattern in other scenario-based experiments using bottles of wine and TV episodes. </p>
<p>But is this about specialness, or any of a number of other reasons for nonconsumption?</p>
<p>To find out, we ran another experiment in which participants imagined buying a bottle of wine. We had half imagine considering opening it one night, but deciding not to. Then when we measured how special the wine seemed, and participants’ intentions to open it later, we found that those who had imagined holding off on opening it were in fact less likely to intend to open it later. They saw the wine as more special.</p>
<p>When we asked participants to provide a reason for why they thought they passed up the wine in this scenario, most assumed they were waiting for a future occasion to open it – not that they didn’t like it or were otherwise prevented from drinking it in some way.</p>
<p>If unused items start to seem too special to use, then would encountering a really special occasion break the cycle?</p>
<p>According to our final study, yes. Imagining forgoing an ordinary bottle of wine made participants feel less likely to open it at the next ordinary occasion, but more likely to open it at a future extraordinary occasion. Like my Target blouse, what had started as an ordinary bottle transformed into something fit for a wedding toast. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="wine bottles on grocery shelf with price labels" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/422448/original/file-20210921-21-3wpyb8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Postponing use seems to change an item’s humble origin story.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/poul-newmasn-own-wine-at-sale-in-walmart-supercenter-2-june-news-photo/526253852">Francis Dean/Corbis Historical via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The psychology behind a ‘specialness spiral’</h2>
<p>Why do people fall into this mental trap? Prior research points to two main reasons.</p>
<p>First, when options are presented one at a time, rather than all at once – much like the choice about whether to crack open a bottle of wine on this particular evening – it can be <a href="https://www.americanscientist.org/article/knowing-when-to-stop">difficult to know when to make a decision</a>. So people often end up “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616671401">holding out</a>” for an <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.593">idealized future occasion</a>.</p>
<p>Second, regardless of the actual reasons behind their feelings and actions, people often come up with their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60024-6">own explanations after the fact</a>. For example, maybe you felt nervous on a date because you were worried about something unrelated, like work. But you might later believe that your nervousness came from really liking your date – psychologists call this phenomenon “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.56">misattribution of arousal</a>.” </p>
<p>Putting these together is a recipe for what we term “specialness spirals.” When you forgo using something – for whatever reason – if you believe that you were waiting to use it, the possession will start to feel more special. You’ll want to save it for a later occasion. And as you search for the right occasion day after day, it becomes more tempting to hold out for a future occasion. The less you use it, though, the more special it feels, and the cycle continues.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the likelihood of using the possession becomes more and more rare – potentially to the point where that originally decent wine is now vinegar, or the blouse is out of style, but you’re still holding on to it. The more this happens, the more stuff you have lying around.</p>
<h2>The clutter connection</h2>
<p>Clutter can be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9682-9">quite destructive</a>, leading to higher stress levels, feelings of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/07/stuffocation-living-more-with-less-james-wallman-review">suffocation</a>, strained relationships and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.03.003">reduced well-being overall</a>. <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/714363">Our research</a> provides one explanation for how and why clutter accumulates.</p>
<p>How can you combat specialness spirals and the accumulation of clutter? Try committing in advance to use an item on a specific occasion. When buying a dress, tell yourself you’ll wear it this weekend. Or when purchasing a candle, plan to light it that day. This strategy should limit how often you consider – but ultimately forgo – using things, and encourage you to actually enjoy your possessions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165863/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacqueline Rifkin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Have you ever bought an item and then just not gotten around to using it because the time never felt right? New studies suggest an explanation for what researchers call nonconsumption.Jacqueline Rifkin, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Missouri-Kansas CityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1555282021-03-17T12:14:27Z2021-03-17T12:14:27ZSelfish or selfless? Human nature means you’re both<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389862/original/file-20210316-22-nwmjbm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=91%2C118%2C3362%2C2166&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Even young children are very aware of whether they're getting their fair share.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/24028496-royalty-free-image/87803233">Jupiterimages/PHOTOS.com via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Looking out for number one has been important for survival for as long as there have been human beings.</p>
<p>But self-interest isn’t the only trait that helped people win at evolution. Groups of individuals who were predisposed to cooperate, care for each other and uphold social norms of fairness tended to survive and expand relative to other groups, thereby allowing these <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2020.12.009">prosocial motivations to proliferate</a>.</p>
<p>So today, concern for oneself and concern for others both contribute to our sense of fairness. Together they facilitate cooperation among unrelated individuals, something ubiquitous among people but uncommon in nature.</p>
<p>A critical question is how people balance these two motivations when making decisions. </p>
<p>We investigate this question in our work at the <a href="https://voices.uchicago.edu/scnl/">Social Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory</a> at the University of Chicago, combining behavioral economics tasks with neuroimaging methods that let us watch what’s happening in the brains of adults and children. We’ve found evidence that people care about both themselves and others – but it’s the self that takes precedence.</p>
<h2>Learning to be equitable</h2>
<p>Children are sensitive to fairness from a very early age.</p>
<p>For instance, if you give two siblings different numbers of cookies, the one who receives fewer will likely throw a fit. Very young children, between 3 and 6 years of age, are highly sensitive to concerns about equality. Splitting resources is “fair” if everyone gets the same amount. By 6 years old, <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0025907">children will even throw resources away</a> rather than allocate them unequally.</p>
<p>As they grow, children develop abilities to <a href="https://theconversation.com/children-understand-far-more-about-other-minds-than-long-believed-72711">think about the minds of others</a> and care about social norms. Soon, they begin to understand the principle of “equity” – a “fair” distribution can be unequal if it takes into account people’s need, effort or merit. For instance, a sibling who does more chores may be entitled to more cookies. This shift toward equity appears to be universal in humans and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12729">follows similar patterns across cultures</a>.</p>
<p>Interestingly, it <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/do-kids-have-a-fundamental-sense-of-fairness/">takes several years of development</a> before children’s own behavior catches up with their understanding of fairness – for instance, by opting to share resources more equally rather than prioritizing their own payoffs.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Child wearing a EEG cap" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389861/original/file-20210316-19-jyqb6d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers fitted children with EEG caps to monitor their brains’ electrical activity as they watched an adult distribute treats.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To investigate how children’s developing brains guide their understanding of fairness, we invited kids ranging from age 4 to 8 into our lab. We gave them four candies to divide between two other people. After they decided how many (if any) to share, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000813">we measured their brain activity</a> using <a href="https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/brain-imaging-techniques/">noninvasive electroencephalography</a> while they watched an adult split 10 rewards – like candies, coins or stickers – between two other people. The distributions could be fair (5:5), slightly unfair (7:3) or very unfair (10:0).</p>
<p>At first, kids’ brain activity looked the same whether they were observing a slightly unfair or very unfair distribution of the treats. After 400 milliseconds, the brain electrical activity for kids who saw the slightly unfair 7:3 split changed to look like the brain response of kids who saw the completely fair 5:5 division.</p>
<p>Our interpretation is that the young brains used that short lag time to consider why an adult might have handed out the treats in a slightly unfair way and then resolved that it may actually have been fair.</p>
<p>Further, children whose brain activity patterns were the most different when viewing fair versus unfair distributions were the most likely to have used merit and need when they originally divided up their candies, before they watched the adults.</p>
<p>So the EEG recordings indicate that even 4-year-old children expect distributions to be perfectly equal, which makes sense given their natural preference for equality. When children, especially after age 5, watch an adult make a completely unfair distribution, they work to try to understand why this might be the case.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="woman with fruit spilling out of ripped grocery bags" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389864/original/file-20210316-21-1yybp28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">How do you prioritize assisting someone else if it would come at a cost to yourself, like missing your bus to help pick up spilled items?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-dropping-groceries-on-sidewalk-royalty-free-image/90201027">Chris Ryan/OJO Images via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Me first, then you</h2>
<p>In your everyday adult life, you face decisions that affect not just yourself, but other people around you. Do you help a stranger pick up their spilled bag and miss your bus? Do you take the big piece of cake and leave the small one for the coworker who is coming later?</p>
<p>Put more generally, how do people balance self-interest against fairness for others when those motivations conflict?</p>
<p>To answer this question, we invited participants to play an economic game. In each round, an anonymous proposer would split US$12 among themselves, the participant and another player. The participant could decide to accept the distribution, allowing all three players to keep the money, or reject the distribution, meaning no one got anything. While participants made their decision, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107576">we measured their neural activity</a> using EEG and fMRI. <a href="https://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/health/health-sciences/how-fmri-works">Functional magnetic resonance imaging</a> reveals active areas of the brain by mapping blood flow.</p>
<p>The proposer was actually a computer that let us manipulate the fairness of the offers. We found that both fairness for self and fairness for the other were important for participants’ decisions, but people were more willing to tolerate offers which were unfair to others if they themselves received an unfair offer. </p>
<p>Our design also allowed us to ask whether the same regions of the brain are sensitive to self-interest and concern for other. A popular concept in cognitive science is that we are able to understand other people because we use the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2003.10.004">same parts of our brain to understand our self</a>. The idea is that the brain activates and manages these shared representations depending on the task at hand.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="brain with different areas highlighted for 'self' and 'others'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389628/original/file-20210315-17-5xu54c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Regions of the brain that were sensitive to fairness for self (red) or other (blue) didn’t overlap in the study.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But in our studies, we found that rather than shared brain areas, distinct brain networks were involved in thinking about fairness for self and other.</p>
<p>We also used machine learning to test whether by looking at the brain signals we could predict what kind of offer a participant had received. We could reliably decode a signal in multiple brain networks that corresponded to fairness for self – that is, “did I get at least a third of the $12?” And this focus on self-interest dominated the early stages of decision-making.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="EEG depicts brain waves when thinking about self and other" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=387&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/389630/original/file-20210315-19-epmnpd.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Accuracy of the machine-learning algorithm trained to use EEG data to classify distributions as fair or unfair for the self or other. Darker lines are times when the algorithm was better than chance (50%). It was better at identifying a reliable pattern of brain activity for self fairness.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Jean Decety/University of Chicago</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Overall, these results suggest that people prioritize their own payoffs first and only later integrate how their options affect other people. So while people do care about others, self-interested behavior is alive and well, even in behavioral economics games. Once people get their fair share, then they are willing to be fair to others. You’re more likely to help the stranger with her bag if you know there will be another bus in 10 minutes, rather than an hour.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p>
<h2>Investigating more complicated scenarios</h2>
<p>In daily life, people are rarely just responders, like in the game in our lab. We are interested in what happens when a person must make decisions that involve other people, such as delegating responsibilities among team members, or when an individual has limited power to personally affect the way resources are divided, as in government spending.</p>
<p>One implication from our work is that when people want to reach a compromise, it may be important to ensure that no one feels taken advantage of. Human nature seems to be to make sure you’ve taken care of yourself before you consider the needs of others.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155528/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cognitive neuroscientists use brain imaging and behavioral economic games to investigate people’s sense of fairness. They find it’s common to take care of yourself before looking out for others.Keith Yoder, Postdoctoral Scholar in Social Cognitive Neuroscience, University of ChicagoJean Decety, Professor of Psychology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, University of ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1523492020-12-28T13:32:28Z2020-12-28T13:32:28Z7 research-based resolutions that will help strengthen your relationship in the year ahead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/498728/original/file-20221202-16594-93wqvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=90%2C98%2C4792%2C3121&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Consider some science-backed ways to keep the home fires burning in 2023.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/senior-couple-holding-numbers-2023-while-royalty-free-image/1431943120">DjordjeDjurdjevic/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The new year is going to be better. It has to be better. Maybe you’re one of the <a href="https://www.finder.com/new-years-resolution-statistics">74% of Americans</a> in one survey who said they planned on hitting the reset button on Jan. 1 and resolving to improve. Those <a href="http://maristpoll.marist.edu/marist-poll-national-results-analysis-4/">New Year’s resolutions most commonly focus on</a> eating healthier, exercising, losing weight and being a better person. </p>
<p>Admirable goals, to be sure. But focusing on body and mind neglects something equally important: your romantic relationship. Couples with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00393.x">better marriages report higher well-being</a>, and one study found that having a better romantic relationship not only promoted well-being and better health now but that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08952841.2020.1838238">those benefits extend into the future</a>. </p>
<p>The lesson is clear: Your relationship is important. Resolve to get it right. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean you have to be perfect. But here are seven resolutions based on recent psychological research that you can make this New Year to help keep your relationship going strong. </p>
<h2>1. Set yourself up for success</h2>
<p>Adjust your mindset so you see your relationship as a key <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00373.x">source of positive experiences</a>. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=v2ai_5wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Psychologists like me</a> call this boosting your social approach motivation. Instead of merely trying to avoid relationship problems, those with an approach motivation seek out the positives and <a href="http://peplab.web.unc.edu/files/2020/11/Don-Fredrickson-Algoe-JPSP-In-press-Approach-Paper-In-Press-.pdf">use them to help the relationship</a>.</p>
<p>Here’s how: Imagine a conversation with your partner. Having more of an approach motivation allows you to focus on positive feelings as you talk and to see your partner as more responsive to you. Your partner gets a burst of positivity, too, and in return sees you as more responsive. One partner’s good vibes spill over to the other partner, ultimately benefiting both. After a year when your relationship may have felt unprecedented external strains, laying the foundation to take advantage of any positives is good place to start. </p>
<h2>2. Be optimistic</h2>
<p>While things in the past may not have always gone how you wanted, it’s important to be optimistic about the future. But the right kind of optimism matters. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12342">2020 research study</a> from <a href="https://cns.utexas.edu/directory/item/84-human-dev-family-sci/3008-farnish-krystan?Itemid=349">Krystan Farnish</a> and <a href="https://cns.utexas.edu/directory/item/14-human-ecology/259-neff-lisa-a?Itemid=349">Lisa Neff</a> found that generally looking on the bright side of life allowed participants to deal with relationship conflict more effectively – as they put it, better able to “shake it off” – than did those who were optimistic specifically about their relationship.</p>
<p>It seems that if people focus all their rosy expectations just on their relationship, it encourages them to anticipate few negative experiences with their partner. Since that’s unrealistic even in the best relationships, it sets them up for disappointment. </p>
<h2>3. Increase your psychological flexibility</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006">Try to go with the flow</a>. In other words, work on accepting your feelings without being defensive. It’s OK to adjust your behaviors – you don’t always have to do things the way you always have or go the places you’ve always gone. Stop being stubborn and experiment with being flexible.</p>
<p>A 2020 study by <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karen_Twiselton">Karen Twiselton</a> and colleagues found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12344">when you’re more flexible psychologically</a>, relationship quality is higher, in part because you experience more positive and fewer negative emotions. For example, navigating the yearly challenge of holidays and family traditions is a relationship minefield. However, if both partners back away from a “must do” mentality in favor of a more adaptable approach, relationship harmony will be greater. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="couple calmly enjoying tea together" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376237/original/file-20201221-19-5dpxqg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When you’re both in a good headspace, it’s easier to keep the relationship moving in the right direction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/couple-asian-young-adult-feeling-relax-making-and-royalty-free-image/1283799454">skaman306/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>4. It’s OK to put ‘me’ before ‘we’</h2>
<p>It’s easy for some people to play the self-sacrificing martyr in their romantic relationship. If this sounds like you, try to focus more on yourself. It doesn’t make you a bad person or a bad partner. When you’re psychologically healthy, your partner and your relationship also benefit. </p>
<p>Researchers have identified <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000231">four main traits that are part of good mental health</a>: openness to feelings, warmth, positive emotions and straightforwardness. These traits help with being more clear about who you are, feeling better about who you are, expressing greater optimism and less aggression, exploiting others less and exhibiting less antisocial behavior. You can see how what’s good for you in this case would be good for your partner too.</p>
<h2>5. Do something for your partner</h2>
<p>But it’s not all about you. Putting your partner first some of the time and catering to your partner’s desires is part of being a couple. A 2020 study by <a href="https://carleton.ca/psychology/people/johanna-peetz/">Johanna Peetz</a> and colleagues found that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12357">prioritizing your partner</a> makes you feel closer to them, increases positive feelings, reduces negative ones and boosts perceived relationship quality. </p>
<p>In the new year, look for ways to give your partner some wins. Let them get their way from time to time and support them in what they want to do, without exclusively prioritizing your own wants and needs. </p>
<h2>6. Don’t be so hard on yourself</h2>
<p>So many New Year’s resolutions focus on body image. Aspirations to eat better and work out often stem from the same goal: a hotter body. Yet, research from <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Xue_Lei8">Xue Lei</a> shows that you may not really know what your partner wants you to look like.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12451">Women tend to overestimate how thin</a> male partners want them to be. Similarly, men believe that female partners want them to be more muscular than women say they do. It may seem harmless, but in both cases individuals are more critical and demanding toward themselves, in part based on misreading what a partner truly desires.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="couple embrace while sitting on the grass" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/376239/original/file-20201221-13-1snhov6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Caring physical contact has a lot of upsides for your relationship.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/gay-couple-latino-and-european-millennial-men-royalty-free-image/1159681114">Drazen_/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>7. Stay in touch</h2>
<p>I saved the easiest item on the list for last: Touch your partner more. When <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cheryl_Carmichael">Cheryl Carmichael</a> and colleagues followed 115 participants over a 10-day period, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620929164">they found that initiating and receiving touch</a> – things like holding hands, cuddling, kissing – were associated with both a boost in closeness and relationship quality. Importantly, being touched by your partner has the added benefit of making you feel more understood and validated. Who couldn’t use more of that in the coming year?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152349/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Gary W. Lewandowski Jr. does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Psychology studies suggest a variety of ways you can strengthen your bond and increase your satisfaction with your partner.Gary W. Lewandowski Jr., Professor of Psychology, Monmouth UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1459902020-09-30T12:28:38Z2020-09-30T12:28:38ZThe urge to punish is not only about revenge – unfairness can unleash it, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359837/original/file-20200924-18-oeo7km.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C732%2C5371%2C3095&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Everyone wants a slice of the pie.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/four-friends-eating-pizza-outdoors-partial-view-royalty-free-image/707450897">Westend61 via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Imagine you and your friend are at a party and someone orders pizza. You’re starving. You put a couple of slices on your plate and sit down at the table. Before you start eating, you excuse yourself to wash your hands.</p>
<p>On your way back from the bathroom, you look across the room just in time to see your friend grab one of the slices off your plate and start to eat it. This would probably make you mad, right? You might even feel an urge to get back at them somehow. </p>
<p>Now imagine a slightly different scenario. You and your friend are at the same party but before you have the chance to get pizza, you excuse yourself to wash your hands. While you’re gone, the pizza is served and your friend grabs a couple slices for themself but only one for you.</p>
<p>This would also probably make you kind of mad, right? But why? This time your friend didn’t actually steal your pizza, so why does it feel like they did something wrong?</p>
<p>The answer is that unfairness alone is upsetting – upsetting enough to drive people to punish those who have benefited from unfair outcomes. </p>
<p>Along with our colleague <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=u6_SEO4AAAAJ&hl=en">Nichola Raihani</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=XNWktKIAAAAJ&hl=en">we</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nVi8unEAAAAJ&hl=en">recently</a> completed a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.001">psychology experiment</a> that supports this concept. The idea that unfairness alone can motivate punishment runs counter to a lot of existing research that suggests <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002160">punishment</a> is driven primarily by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171298">revenge</a>. </p>
<p>Why does this matter? Because understanding what motivates punishment can help shed light on the functions it serves in human societies – and possibly even why punishment evolved in the first place. </p>
<h2>Deterrence and leveling</h2>
<p>Revenge-based punishment may serve an important deterrence function – encouraging those who have harmed you to behave better in the future. </p>
<p>Inequity-based punishment, on the other hand, may serve an important leveling function – making sure you’re not worse off than those around you, potentially giving you a competitive edge – or at least preventing others from gaining too much of a step up.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A statue of Lady Justice with a sword in one hand and scales in the other." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=597&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359143/original/file-20200921-22-5ph8ej.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=751&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Humans have been concerned with justice for ages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/statue-of-lady-justice-royalty-free-image/155419475">georgeclerk/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In our study, we wanted to understand what drives people to punish others. Is it revenge, inequity or both? </p>
<p>We paired up thousands of participants who had never met in an online economic game in which they made decisions about real money. In one condition, just as in the first pizza example, one player stole money from another player. In some cases, depending on the amount of money the victim started with, stealing meant the thief ended up with more money than the victim.</p>
<p>We expected this theft would motivate victims to punish and we were right: People do not like being stolen from and would pay to punish thieves, reducing their income in the game. This evidence supports the idea that punishment is motivated by revenge.</p>
<p>However, this scenario didn’t tell us whether people also punish in response to unfairness. To test this possibility, we designed a similar situation – one that resulted in one player ending up with more than the other – but, in this case, no theft occurred. Rather, like the second pizza example, one player had a chance to gift money to the other player, at no cost to themself, or the money disappeared.</p>
<p>In these cases, a player who refused to give money to the other would sometimes end up with more money – the unfair outcome we were curious about. Interestingly, we found people were more likely to punish when they had less money than the other player – even when no theft had occurred. </p>
<p>This showed us that unfairness alone, even in the absence of a direct transgression like theft, is enough to motivate punishment. </p>
<h2>A multipurpose behavior</h2>
<p>Our new findings are exciting because they suggest that people have different motivations to punish others. Sure, people are motivated to seek revenge on those who have stolen from them, but they are also willing to punish in cases where they simply have less than others. </p>
<p>[<em>Deep knowledge, daily.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=deepknowledge">Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p>
<p>This finding suggests punishment likely evolved for different uses – deterrence as well as leveling the playing field – showcasing how one behavior can serve different functions. That punishment can serve such different functions implies that both deterrence and resource leveling might have increased the genetic fitness of our ancestors. In other words, as humans evolved, people who punished to deter others or level the playing field passed on more of their genes than those who punished less.</p>
<p>So next time you’re deciding whether to take more than your fair share of pizza, maybe think twice. Otherwise you might unwittingly become the target of a hungry punisher looking for justice.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145990/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>During the study period, I received funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR). It was an Azrieli Global Scholars award. Our lab had other external funding during this time, but it was not relevant to this project.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Deutchman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Unfairness alone is upsetting enough to drive people to punish lucky recipients of unfair outcomes.Paul Deutchman, PhD Candidate in Psychology, Boston CollegeKatherine McAuliffe, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Boston CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1458942020-09-24T12:20:44Z2020-09-24T12:20:44ZMicroaggressions aren’t just innocent blunders – research links them with racial bias<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359571/original/file-20200923-18-17p6oh1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=630%2C0%2C4682%2C3741&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">They're not just honest or ignorant mistakes, and they can poison an otherwise pleasant interaction.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/friends-eating-at-table-during-bbq-with-family-royalty-free-image/1014547242">Hinterhaus Productions/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A white man shares publicly that a group of Black Harvard graduates “<a href="https://medium.com/@pooja.salhotra27/no-racist-comment-deserves-tolerance-e8a416c681eb">look like gang members to me</a>” and claims he would have said the same of white people dressed similarly. A white physician <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/health/microaggression-medicine-doctors.html">mistakes a Black physician for a janitor</a> and says it was an honest mistake. A white woman asks to touch a Black classmate’s hair, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLQzz75yE5A">is scolded for doing so</a> and sulks, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OItfXaBoCb4">I was just curious</a>.”</p>
<p>It’s a pattern that recurs countless times, in myriad interactions and contexts, across American society. A white person says something that is experienced as racially biased, is called on it and reacts defensively.</p>
<p>These comments and other such subtle <a href="https://theconversation.com/many-small-microaggressions-add-up-to-something-big-50694">snubs, insults and offenses</a> are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271">known as microaggressions</a>. The concept, <a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/170642574/Offensive-Mechanisms-Chester-Pierce">introduced in the 1970s</a> by Black psychiatrist Chester Pierce, is now the focus of a fierce debate.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="young Black woman with her hand up" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359574/original/file-20200923-14-12rnumx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=537&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Most research has focused on the harms done to those on the receiving end of microaggressions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/mom-and-daughter-arguing-royalty-free-image/1032210076">SDI Productions/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On one side, Black people and a host of others representing multiple diverse communities stand with a wealth of testimonials, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271">lists of different types of microaggressions</a> and compelling scientific evidence documenting <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000172">how these experiences harm</a> recipients.</p>
<p>Some white people are on board, working to understand, change and join as allies. Still, a cacophony of white voices exists in the public discourse, dismissive, defensive and influential. Their main argument: Microaggressions are innocuous and innocent, not associated with racism at all. Many contend that those who complain about microaggressions are <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/">manipulating victimhood and being too sensitive</a>.</p>
<h2>Linking bias to microaggressions</h2>
<p>Until recently, the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-013-9107-9">majority of research on microaggressions</a> has focused on asking people targeted by microaggressions about their experiences and perspectives, rather than researching the offenders. This previous research is crucial. But with respect to understanding white defensiveness and underlying racial bias, it’s akin to researching why baseball pitchers keep hitting batters with pitches by only interviewing batters about how it feels to get hit.</p>
<p>My colleagues <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=2AwIThUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">and I</a> – a team of Black, white (myself included) and other psychological scientists and students – went directly to the “pitchers” to untangle the relationship between these expressions and racial bias. </p>
<p>We asked white college students in 2020 – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-020-09298-w">one group at a university in the Northwest</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-017-9214-0">another at a campus in the southern Midwest</a> – how likely they are to commit 94 commonly described microaggressions that we identified from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271">research publications</a> and Black students we interviewed. For example, you are meeting a Black woman with braids; how likely are you to ask, “Can I touch your hair?” </p>
<p>We also asked our participants to describe their own racial bias using well-known measures. Then, we asked some participants to come to our laboratory to talk about current events with others. Lab observers rated how many explicitly racially biased statements they made in their interactions.</p>
<p>We found direct support for what recipients of microaggressions have been saying all along: Students who are more likely to say they commit microaggressions are more likely to score higher on measures of racial bias. One’s likelihood of microaggressing also predicts how racist one is judged to be by lab observers, as they watch real interactions unfold. We’re currently analyzing the same kind of data from a national sample of adults, and the results look similar.</p>
<p>With some microaggressions, like “Can I touch your hair?,” the influence of racial bias is real but small. When the white woman who asked to touch the Black woman’s hair responds, “I was just curious,” she’s not necessarily lying about her conscious intentions. She likely is unaware of the subtle racial bias that also influences her behavior. One can demonstrate racial bias and curiosity at the same time.</p>
<p>Even small doses of prejudice, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212468170">especially when they are confusing or ambiguous</a>, are documented to be psychologically harmful for recipients. Our research suggests that some microaggressions, such as asking “Where are you from?” or staying silent during a debate about racism, may be understood as small doses of racial bias, contaminating otherwise good intentions.</p>
<p>In our studies, other kinds of microaggressions, including those that explicitly deny racism, are strongly and explicitly related to white participants’ self-reported levels of racial bias. For instance, the more racial bias a participant says they have, the more likely they are to say, “All lives matter, not just Black lives.” These expressions are more than small doses of toxin. Still, even in these cases, racial bias does not explain all of it, leaving ample room for defensiveness and claims that the recipient is being too sensitive.</p>
<p>In our research, participants who agreed with the statement “A lot of minorities are too sensitive these days” showed some of the highest levels of racial bias.</p>
<h2>Addressing microaggressions in context</h2>
<p>Amidst chronic and widespread racial injustices, including <a href="https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a-forgotten-history-of-how-our-government-segregated-america/">segregated neighborhoods</a>, <a href="https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/disparities-in-health-and-health-care-five-key-questions-and-answers/#:%7E:text=A%20%E2%80%9Chealth%20disparity%E2%80%9D%20refers%20to,care%2C%20and%20quality%20of%20care">disparities in health care outcomes</a>, <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-capture-the-full-extent-of-the-systemic-bias-in-policing/">systemic police bias</a> and <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2020/06/25/white-supremacist-terrorism-on-the-rise-and-spreading/#e9040d55a0fb">rising white supremacist violence</a>, a chorus of Black and other voices also have been expressing pain and anger about the stream of subtle microaggressions they endure as part of daily life in the United States.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Black woman smiles in conversation with women of other races" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/359577/original/file-20200923-20-19k8mdx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Those on the receiving end of microaggresions want perpetrators to acknowledge the problem.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/smiling-friends-in-discussion-before-holiday-dinner-royalty-free-image/640951000">Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consistent with our research, they generally are not insisting that offenders admit to being card-carrying racists. They are asking offenders, despite their conscious intentions, to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBMWkHHAkN8">understand and acknowledge the impacts</a> of their behavior. They are asking for understanding that those offended are <a href="https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/we-were-so-happy-microaggressions-and-where-they-happen/e/52110912">not imagining things or just being too sensitive</a>. Mostly, they are asking offenders to improve their awareness, stop engaging in behaviors that create and perpetuate race-based harm themselves and join in fighting against the rest of it.</p>
<p>As a clinical psychologist, I know that, even in the best of circumstances, true self-awareness and behavior change are hard work.</p>
<p>U.S. society provides far from the best of circumstances. At the nation’s birth, people found a way to celebrate democracy, freedom and equality while owning slaves and destroying Indigenous populations, and then found ways to <a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674008199">erase many of these horrors from the nation’s collective memory</a>. Yet, as <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1747259-the-price-of-the-ticket-collected-nonfiction-1948-1985">James Baldwin said of this history</a>, “We carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do.”</p>
<p>Science provides validation of the problem of microaggressions: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000172">They are real, harmful</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-020-09298-w">associated with racial bias</a>, whether the perpetrator is aware of it or not. Improving awareness of this bias is hard but important work. If Americans want to advance toward a more racially just society, identifying effective ways to reduce microaggressions will be necessary, and this research is just beginning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/145894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonathan Kanter does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>White people are often defensive when they’re called out for these subtle snubs and insults. But researchers have found that microaggressions correlate with racial bias.Jonathan Kanter, Director of the Center for the Science of Social Connection, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1408292020-06-18T12:17:29Z2020-06-18T12:17:29ZHere’s why some people are willing to challenge bullying, corruption and bad behavior, even at personal risk<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342503/original/file-20200617-94078-1gy6mv0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=209%2C286%2C7029%2C4341&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Certain characteristics mean moral rebels are willing to not go with the flow.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/rebellion-concept-royalty-free-image/1170636104">Francesco Carta fotografo/Moment via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a longtime Republican, spent months standing up to intense and highly public <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-lindsey-graham-throw-out-ballots/">pressure from members of Congress</a>, who urged him to throw out legally cast ballots, <a href="https://theconversation.com/trumps-smoking-gun-tape-is-worse-than-nixons-but-congressional-republicans-have-less-incentive-to-do-anything-about-it-152643">and from President Donald Trump</a>, who asked him to “find 11,780 votes” to change the outcome of the election.</p>
<p>Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois became the first Republican member of Congress to <a href="https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/01/07/congressman-adam-kinzinger-president-donald-trump-removal-25th-amendment-us-capitol-riot/">call for Trump’s immediate removal</a> from office by the 25th Amendment, following the mob riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.</p>
<p>Ben Danielson, a well-regarded medical director of a Seattle medical clinic, resigned in November to protest ongoing racism in the hospital, noting concerns about his “<a href="https://crosscut.com/equity/2020/12/revered-doctor-steps-down-accusing-seattle-childrens-hospital-racism">own complicity as a representative of a hospital</a> that does not treat people of color as it should.”</p>
<p>All of these people spoke up to call out bad behavior, even in the face of immense pressure to stay silent. Although the specifics of each of these cases are quite different, what each of these people share is a willingness to take action. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=-dCo5lYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Psychologists like me</a> describe those who are willing to defend their principles in the face of potentially negative social consequences such as disapproval, ostracism and career setbacks as “moral rebels.”</p>
<p><a href="https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674241831">Moral rebels</a> speak up in all types of situations – to tell a bully to cut it out, to confront a friend who uses a racist slur, to report a colleague who engages in corporate fraud. What enables someone to call out bad behavior, even if doing so may have costs?</p>
<h2>The traits of a moral rebel</h2>
<p>First, moral rebels generally <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2015.1012765">feel good about themselves</a>. They tend to have high self-esteem and to feel confident about their own judgment, values and ability. They also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209346170">believe their own views are superior</a> to those of others, and thus that they have a social responsibility to share those beliefs.</p>
<p>Moral rebels are also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2015.10.002">less socially inhibited than others</a>. They aren’t worried about feeling embarrassed or having an awkward interaction. Perhaps most importantly, they are far less concerned about conforming to the crowd. So, when they have to choose between fitting in and doing the right thing, they will probably choose to do what they see as right. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=576&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342510/original/file-20200617-94060-1a795tg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=724&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The orbitofrontal cortex (in green on this brain that is facing to the left) looks different in moral rebels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/digital-illustration-of-human-brain-with-royalty-free-illustration/98193711">Dorling Kindersley via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Research in neuroscience reveals that people’s ability to stand up to social influence is reflected in anatomical differences in the brain. People who are more concerned about fitting in show <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.01.012">more gray matter volume in one particular part of the brain</a>, the lateral orbitofrontal cortex. This area right behind your eyebrows creates memories of events that led to negative outcomes. It helps guide you away from things you want to avoid the next time around – such as being rejected by your group. </p>
<p>People who are more concerned about conforming to their group also show <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.12.035">more activity in two other brain circuits</a>; one that responds to social pain – like when you experience rejection – and another that tries to understand others’ thoughts and feelings. In other words, those who feel worst when excluded by their group try the hardest to fit in.</p>
<p>What does this suggest about moral rebels? For some people, feeling like you’re different than everyone else feels really bad, even at a neurological level. For other people, it may not matter as much, which makes it easier for them to stand up to social pressure. </p>
<p>These characteristics are totally agnostic as to what the moral rebel is standing up for. You could be the lone anti-abortion voice in your very liberal family or the lone abortion rights advocate in your very conservative family. In either scenario it’s about standing up to social pressure to stay silent – and that pressure of course could be applied about anything.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/342504/original/file-20200617-94101-1j66rwv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Kids learn to stand up for what they believe in when they see their role models doing so.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/girl-jumps-holding-a-sign-while-she-and-her-family-protest-news-photo/1216479646">Apu Gomes/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The path of a moral rebel</h2>
<p>What does it take to create a moral rebel?</p>
<p>It helps to have <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-08753-003">seen moral courage in action</a>. Many of the civil rights activists who participated in marches and sit-ins in the southern United States in the 1960s had parents who displayed moral courage and civic engagement, as did many of the Germans who rescued Jews during the Holocaust. Watching people you look up to show moral courage can inspire you to do the same.</p>
<p>A budding moral rebel also needs to feel empathy, imagining the world from someone else’s perspective. Spending time with and really getting to know people from different backgrounds helps. White high school students who had more contact with people from different ethnic groups – in their neighborhood, at school and on sports teams – have higher levels of empathy and see people from different minority groups in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12053">more positive ways</a>.</p>
<p>These same students are more likely to report taking some action if a classmate uses an ethnic slur, such as by directly challenging that person, supporting the victim or telling a teacher. People who are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-010-9109-1">more empathetic</a> are also more likely to defend someone who is being bullied.</p>
<p>Finally, moral rebels need particular skills and practice using them. One study found that teenagers who <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01682.x">held their own in an argument with their mother</a>, using reasoned arguments instead of whining, pressure or insults, were the most resistant to peer pressure to use drugs or drink alcohol later on. Why? People who have practiced making effective arguments and sticking with them under pressure are better able to use these same techniques with their peers. </p>
<p>Moral rebels clearly have particular characteristics that enable them to stand up for what’s right. But what about the rest of us? Are we doomed to be the silent bystanders who meekly stand by and don’t dare call out bad behavior?</p>
<p>Fortunately, no. It is possible to develop the ability to stand up to social pressure. In other words, anyone can learn to be a moral rebel.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 18, 2020.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140829/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Catherine A. Sanderson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Psychologists have identified the characteristics of ‘moral rebels’ who make the tough choice to stand up for their principles in the face of negative consequences.Catherine A. Sanderson, Poler Family Professor and Chair of Psychology, Amherst CollegeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1355252020-04-09T12:08:52Z2020-04-09T12:08:52ZHere’s how Americans coped during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/326552/original/file-20200408-153819-1n9he2c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=10%2C1724%2C3423%2C2462&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most people felt they were doing OK – with lots of TV and news updates.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/iUHDzbdudC4">Erik Mclean/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The COVID-19 pandemic has changed everyday life for Americans. How well are people across the country dealing with the new reality of closed businesses, shuttered schools, social distancing and the threat of the coronavirus itself? </p>
<p><a href="https://psychology.iupui.edu/risc-lab">As psychology</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=fZr3zoUAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">researchers</a>, we decided to conduct an online survey to find out. On March 26, we asked 500 adults from age 19 to 78 a series of questions to help us better understand how Americans are mentally coping with the pandemic. The group represented 47 U.S. states and roughly matched the age, race and gender demographics of the nation. </p>
<p>Though not yet peer-reviewed, these responses provide a snapshot of Americans’ mental health as the coronavirus pandemic really started to ramp up, as well as a hint about groups who might struggle during this unprecedented time.</p>
<h2>Doing basically OK</h2>
<p>Overall, our survey indicated that Americans were coping fairly well as of late March. Our respondents reported only moderate levels of stress and worry about COVID-19, estimating their individual likelihood of becoming infected as only around 30%, on average.</p>
<p>Despite the anecdotal impression that younger people are less worried about the pandemic, all age groups reported similar levels of worry and estimated they had about the same chance of being infected.</p>
<p><iframe id="UOB9S" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/UOB9S/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>There were no big surprises in how individuals reported most commonly coping with pandemic-related challenges: They were talking with friends, watching TV, exercising, listening to news and engaging in hobbies. The most effective coping strategies included problem-solving, exercising, engaging in hobbies and focusing on what they felt thankful for. These strategies were associated with lower self-reported stress and better self-reported coping with the pandemic.</p>
<h2>Some people having a tougher time</h2>
<p>However, not all Americans were coping well. There were some groups who appeared more vulnerable to negative effects of pandemic stress.</p>
<p>About 35% of our survey respondents reported changes in their employment since the beginning of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic. This is an increase from earlier estimates in mid-March that <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-pandemic-sees-nearly-1-5-americans-either-lose-their-job-have-their-hours-reduced-1492725">1 in 5 American workers had lost their jobs</a> or had them reduced.</p>
<p><iframe id="cTEpY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/cTEpY/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Not only are they dealing with the usual stressors related to the pandemic; they also have to worry about whether they’re going to make it through this period financially. Unsurprisingly, these individuals reported more stress and worry, rated their chances of being infected with COVID-19 as higher and said they were coping less effectively with the pandemic. </p>
<p>Americans living in urban regions also reported more worry about the pandemic and were coping less effectively than those in suburban and rural regions. This might be because COVID-19 first hit urban areas, including Seattle, New York and Los Angeles. However, people across rural, urban and suburban regions all put their own odds of getting infected with COVID-19 around the same 30% chance.</p>
<p>About 18% of the sample reported being at a higher risk for COVID-19 due to a pre-existing condition, including being immunocompromised, having a respiratory illness or being over the age of 65. Unsurprisingly, people in this group reported more worry, rated their chances of becoming ill as higher and stated they were coping less effectively.</p>
<h2>Women bearing more, coping less well</h2>
<p>Women reported more anxiety, stress and worry, believed they had higher chances of being infected with COVID-19 and were coping less effectively than men.</p>
<p><iframe id="a2cHY" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/a2cHY/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>We suspect this increased vulnerability may in part be due to caregiving responsibilities. Women in our sample disproportionately reported taking care of kids, experiencing a loss of privacy and personal time, and struggles between work and family responsibilities during this pandemic. </p>
<p>Women reported engaging in more coping strategies than men did, by seeking out support from others, engaging in faith practices and focusing on what they are thankful for. Those strategies were associated with better self-reported coping. However, women also reported more maladaptive coping strategies, like stress eating and irritability. </p>
<h2>Hazardous alcohol drinkers drinking more</h2>
<p>Alcohol use may be on the rise with this pandemic, with some reports indicating <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/us-alcohol-sales-increase-55-percent-one-week-amid-coronavirus-pandemic-1495510">large increases in alcohol sales</a>. In our sample, about a quarter of current alcohol drinkers reported drinking more since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. They attributed this mostly to “boredom” or to “dealing with the stress” of the pandemic.</p>
<p>This same group in our sample who’d increased their drinking are particularly vulnerable since for the most part they were already drinking hazardously before the pandemic, meaning that any increase could be harmful for their health.</p>
<p>On average, these people are now drinking at “<a href="https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/moderate-binge-drinking">binge levels</a>” – four drinks per drinking occasion for women, five drinks for men – which is associated with worse alcohol-related health outcomes. These individuals tended to live in urban or suburban areas, be quarantined with others, report more stress and worry about the pandemic, and were coping less well than other alcohol drinkers.</p>
<p>Importantly, about 30% of drinkers reported drinking less since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. This was mostly due to not being able to go out to bars or restaurants, trying to save money or as an effort to not suppress their immune system. </p>
<p>Life in the U.S. during the time of coronavirus continues to change rapidly. We hope to track Americans’ mental health as the pandemic progresses, especially as typical coping strategies and treatment options become less accessible.</p>
<p>[<em>You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=upper-coronavirus-help">Read The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135525/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Melissa Cyders receives funding from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the Indiana University Addictions Grand Challenge program.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin H. Plawecki receives funding from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and SmartStart Inc.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Christiana Prestigiacomo and Melissa Liu do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A survey of 500 adults in the US provides a snapshot of the ways people are dealing with life during a pandemic and how well they think they’re doing.Melissa Cyders, Associate Professor of Psychology, IUPUIChristiana Prestigiacomo, Ph.D. Student in Psychology, IUPUIMartin H. Plawecki, Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Indiana University School of MedicineMelissa Liu, Ph.D. Student in Psychology, IUPUILicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1349722020-04-08T12:12:27Z2020-04-08T12:12:27ZPorn use is up, thanks to the pandemic<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325768/original/file-20200406-103690-wfdr52.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Self-isolation can be boring and lonely.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/jtTjrKLvhDw">Annie Spratt/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Across the globe, the coronavirus pandemic is affecting almost all aspects of daily life. <a href="https://theconversation.com/fleeing-from-the-coronavirus-is-dangerous-for-you-the-people-you-encounter-along-the-way-and-wherever-you-end-up-133995">Travel</a> is down; <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-high-will-unemployment-go-during-the-great-depression-1-in-4-americans-were-out-of-work-135508">jobless claims are up</a>; and <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/06/small-business-loan-coronavirus-sba/">small businesses</a> are struggling. </p>
<p>But not all businesses are experiencing a downturn. The world’s largest pornography website, Pornhub, has reported <a href="https://www.pornhub.com/insights/coronavirus-update">large increases</a> in traffic – for instance, seeing an 18% jump over normal numbers after making its premium content <a href="https://hiphopwired.com/848109/pornhub-premium-free-coronavirus">free for 30 days</a> for people who agree to stay home and wash their hands frequently. In many regions, these spikes in use have occurred immediately after social distancing measures have been implemented. </p>
<p>Why are people viewing more pornography? <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=gCnmj3kAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I’m a professor of clinical psychology</a> who researches pornography use. Based on a <a href="https://www.joshuagrubbsphd.com">decade of work</a> in this area, I have some ideas about this surge in online pornography’s popularity and how it might affect users in the long run. </p>
<h2>What’s the point of pornography?</h2>
<p>People use pornography for a variety of reasons, but the most common reason is quite obvious: pleasure.</p>
<p>In 2019, my colleagues and I published a review of over 130 scientific studies of pornography use and motivation. We found that the most common reason people report for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.1584045">why they view pornography is sexual arousal</a>. Research is abundantly clear that the majority of time that pornography is used, it is used <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1532488">as a part</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-017-9452-8">of masturbation</a>.</p>
<p>Knowing that people use pornography to masturbate doesn’t explain a great deal about why they might be using more pornography now. </p>
<p>My colleagues and I found that there are several additional reasons people might use pornography. For example, greater levels of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1191597">psychological distress often predict higher levels</a> of pornography use. People <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2017.1321601">feeling lonely</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869317728373">depressed</a> often report greater desire to seek out pornography; many people report using pornography to cope with feelings of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2011.607047">stress, anxiety or negative emotions</a>.</p>
<p>In short, people often turn to pornography when they are feeling bad, because pornography (and masturbation) likely offer a temporary relief from those feelings.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325773/original/file-20200406-196131-1yeznfg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Boredom can be a big driver to online pornography.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/Pe4gh8a8mBY">niklas_hamann/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Psychology researchers also know that people use porn <a href="http://hdl.lib.byu.edu/1877/etd3191">more when they are bored</a>. I suspect this relationship between pornography use and boredom is quite likely one of those exponential functions that’s been in the news so much in recent weeks. It’s not just that more boredom predicts greater pornography use – extreme boredom predicts even higher levels of use. The more bored someone is, the more likely they are to report wanting to view pornography.</p>
<h2>Is more pornography now a problem later?</h2>
<p>The spread of the coronavirus and social distancing measures meant to help contain it have led to increases in <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-loneliness-of-the-social-distancer-triggers-brain-cravings-akin-to-hunger/">social isolation</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-could-lead-to-an-epidemic-of-clinical-depression-and-the-health-care-system-isnt-ready-for-that-either-134528">loneliness</a> and <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/why-your-mental-health-may-be-suffering-in-the-covid-19-pandemic">stress</a> – so increases in pornography use make sense.</p>
<p>But are there likely to be negative effects down the road?</p>
<p>Already, numerous <a href="https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/03/how-big-porn-is-making-the-coronavirus-crisis-even-worse/">anti-pornography</a> activists have expressed grave concerns about these increases in use, with many groups providing resources for <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/online-anti-porn-ministry-getting-increased-interest-from-churches-due-to-coronavirus-shutdowns.html">fighting those rises</a>. </p>
<p>As a scientist, however, I’m skeptical of blanket claims that increased use right now will translate to widespread negative outcomes such as <a href="https://talentrecap.com/agts-terry-crews-open-up-about-his-porn-addiction-and-how-it-rewired-his-brain/">addiction</a> or sexual dysfunction. Like most aspects of the ongoing coronavirus crisis, there are probably not enough data yet for researchers to make definitive predictions, but past studies do provide some ideas.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0783-6">most consumers</a> do not report any problems in their lives as a result of pornography use. Among people who use pornography frequently – even every day – a large percentage report <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.01.007">no problems from that use</a>.</p>
<p>Some research, though, does find links between pornography use and potentially concerning outcomes. For example, for men, pornography use is often linked with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12108">lower levels of sexual satisfaction</a>, but the current evidence doesn’t untangle whether men use pornography more when they are dealing with sexual dissatisfaction or if men using pornography more leads to more sexual dissatisfaction.</p>
<p>For women, the results are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12108">even more unclear</a>. Some studies have actually found that pornography use is associated with more sexual satisfaction, whereas others have found that it is not associated with sexual satisfaction at all. </p>
<p>Studies related to pornography use and mental health have found that hours spent using pornography do not necessarily cause <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000114">depression, anxiety, stress or anger over time</a>. The same holds for sexual dysfunctions. Although there are cases of people who state that pornography led them to experience <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/bs6030017">erectile dysfunction</a>, large-scale studies have repeatedly found that mere pornography use <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2018.11.004">does not predict erectile dysfunction over time</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/325778/original/file-20200406-180021-7l6emy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cooped up alone, people are looking for distraction.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/jZi0Ih47EDY">Siavash Ghanbari/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>A distraction at a boring, anxious time</h2>
<p>There is certainly evidence that some people who use pornography also report having mental health concerns or sexual problems in their lives; so far, though, the evidence linking pornography to those things does not appear to be causal.</p>
<p>In short, porn does not seem to be causing widespread problems, and it is probably offering people a distraction from the boredom and stress of current events. </p>
<p>Despite the fact that, prior to COVID-19, 17 states introduced or passed legislation calling pornography use a public health crisis, public health professionals have argued that it <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305498">really is not one</a>, and I tend to agree. COVID-19, on the other hand, certainly is a public health crisis.</p>
<p>Although humanity has survived countless pandemics over the ages, the current one is the first to occur in the digital age. As disruptive as the coronavirus has been, for many people, opportunities for entertainment and distraction remain greater than they have been at any other point in history. </p>
<p>When social distancing measures are lifted and people are once again permitted to safely spend time with friends, strangers and potential sexual partners, I would expect that pornography use will return to pre-COVID-19 levels. For most users, pornography is probably just another distraction – one that might actually help “flatten the curve” by keeping people safely occupied and socially distanced. Combined with the fact that many people are isolating alone, pornography may provide a low-risk sexual outlet that does not cause people to risk their own safety or the safety of others. </p>
<p>[<em>You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklysmart">You can get our highlights each weekend</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/134972/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joshua B. Grubbs does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Online pornography is one business that’s booming during the coronavirus pandemic. A psychology researcher explains its pull and whether there are likely to be longer-term effects of this surge in use.Joshua B. Grubbs, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Bowling Green State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.