I am going to call maintenance on Monday and ask them to paint my classroom walls red. Why? So my students perform better on their tests.
A Canadian study I read today by Ravi Mehta and Rui Zhu (no, my fingers didn't have a spasm as I tried to key in their names) suggests that "red is beneficial for some kinds of mental processing, while blue is beneficial for others."
Research participants solved computer tasks, some cognitive and some creative, with different colored screen backgrounds. When the background was red, "people were better at a word-recall task and a proof-reading task." When the background was blue, "participants came up with... more creative ideas for things to do with a brick."
Creative things to do with a brick? Whoever thought of that as a "creative" research task must have been sitting in a blue room. Okay, in fairness, they also found that "participants given blue parts came up with more creative toy designs."
According to Mehta and Zhu, a real-world application of their research (I always like it when there are actually some real-world applications of something done in a pscyhology lab) would be, "What wall color do we pick for an educational facility? ... [D]epending on the nature of the task, different colors might be beneficial."
Let's think about this. On my multiple-choice tests, do I want my students to be "creative" or "cognitive"? This is psychology, not art class! Let's go for cognitive.
Paint the walls of my classroom red, please.
September 5, 2009
September 2, 2009
Signs of Autism
WebMD.com defines Autism as "a pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) that often interferes with a person's ability to communicate with and relate to others." Finding the cause of Autism Spectrum Disorder (the full name) has become a global quest for those in the fields of medicine and psychology.
Some interesting research by Sarah White and colleagues, reported in their article, "Big Heads, Small Details and Autism," in a recent issue of Neuropsychologia, shows an interesting correlation between head size and degree of functioning.
One dysfunction with autistic children is the inability to switch from focusing on a global field to a local field (large items to small details).
White's research with 61 autistic children showed that the one's with the poorest performance were the children with abnormally big heads. Some had heads that were disportionately large for their bodies, others had large-for-their-age bodies and heads.
"The new findings suggest that an enlarged head could be a marker for the existence of... abnormal wiring [in the brain.]"
The abnormal wiring basically is that there aren't enough neural connections in the brain (connections between brain cells). We don't know why this happens but it is suspected that it happens during the developmentally normal "pruning" of neural connections that happens as a young child grows.
We begin with approximately twice as many neural connections as we need. They are pruned back or increased in response to environmental stimuli the child experiences. Autism may result when too many of these connections are pruned.
Again, we don't yet know why this happens. And, this is correlational research: we can't determine from it if the oversized head causes the excessive pruning, or if the excessive pruning causes the oversized head, or if there is a third factor that causes both.
It is hoped that head-size might become a useful marker in early detection of Autism. One complicating factor is that many children with larger heads are not autistic. So, this cannot be a stand-alone consideration. Others, like disinterest in making eye contact, must continue to be taken into consideration.
Some interesting research by Sarah White and colleagues, reported in their article, "Big Heads, Small Details and Autism," in a recent issue of Neuropsychologia, shows an interesting correlation between head size and degree of functioning.
One dysfunction with autistic children is the inability to switch from focusing on a global field to a local field (large items to small details).
White's research with 61 autistic children showed that the one's with the poorest performance were the children with abnormally big heads. Some had heads that were disportionately large for their bodies, others had large-for-their-age bodies and heads.
"The new findings suggest that an enlarged head could be a marker for the existence of... abnormal wiring [in the brain.]"
The abnormal wiring basically is that there aren't enough neural connections in the brain (connections between brain cells). We don't know why this happens but it is suspected that it happens during the developmentally normal "pruning" of neural connections that happens as a young child grows.
We begin with approximately twice as many neural connections as we need. They are pruned back or increased in response to environmental stimuli the child experiences. Autism may result when too many of these connections are pruned.
Again, we don't yet know why this happens. And, this is correlational research: we can't determine from it if the oversized head causes the excessive pruning, or if the excessive pruning causes the oversized head, or if there is a third factor that causes both.
It is hoped that head-size might become a useful marker in early detection of Autism. One complicating factor is that many children with larger heads are not autistic. So, this cannot be a stand-alone consideration. Others, like disinterest in making eye contact, must continue to be taken into consideration.
September 1, 2009
Our Source Monitoring Problem
I love the research that Elizabeth Loftus, PhD, at the University of Washington, has done on memory and eyewitness testimony.
Her research has shown that stored memories can be changed by the very act of remembering.
She showed video of a car crash. 1/2 of the participants saw a version where there was a Stop sign, the other 1/2 saw a version with a Yield sign.
Immediately after seeing the video the groups were asked a question about what they saw. 1/2 of each group was asked a correct question. Those who saw a stop sign were asked, "Did the car run the stop sign?" or, "Did the car run the yield sign?" if they had seen the yield sign version.
The other 1/2 was asked the question, "Did the car run the stop sign?" when they had SEEN a version with a yield sign (and vice versa).
A week later each group was asked, "Which video did you see?"
The people who had seen a stop sign and were asked the question with "stop sign" in it remembered accurately that they had seen a video with a stop sign in it.
But, the people who saw a stop sign and had been asked the question that had "yield sign" in it remembered that they had seen a video with a yield sign in it.
They had seen a stop sign but remembered seeing a yield sign.
What made their eyewitness account wrong? The memory they had stored had been changed by the question they were later asked. We have the memory, but what is called the "Source Monitoring Problem" is that we can't acturately remember where we GOT the memory - from the actual event or some information that came into our minds later.
No wonder defense attorneys don't worry that there were eyewitnesses to their client's crime! Eyewitnesses often remember seeing things they didn't actually see. This helps us understand why so many people, convicted on eyewitness testimonry, are being set free by DNA evidence.
Her research has shown that stored memories can be changed by the very act of remembering.
She showed video of a car crash. 1/2 of the participants saw a version where there was a Stop sign, the other 1/2 saw a version with a Yield sign.
Immediately after seeing the video the groups were asked a question about what they saw. 1/2 of each group was asked a correct question. Those who saw a stop sign were asked, "Did the car run the stop sign?" or, "Did the car run the yield sign?" if they had seen the yield sign version.
The other 1/2 was asked the question, "Did the car run the stop sign?" when they had SEEN a version with a yield sign (and vice versa).
A week later each group was asked, "Which video did you see?"
The people who had seen a stop sign and were asked the question with "stop sign" in it remembered accurately that they had seen a video with a stop sign in it.
But, the people who saw a stop sign and had been asked the question that had "yield sign" in it remembered that they had seen a video with a yield sign in it.
They had seen a stop sign but remembered seeing a yield sign.
What made their eyewitness account wrong? The memory they had stored had been changed by the question they were later asked. We have the memory, but what is called the "Source Monitoring Problem" is that we can't acturately remember where we GOT the memory - from the actual event or some information that came into our minds later.
No wonder defense attorneys don't worry that there were eyewitnesses to their client's crime! Eyewitnesses often remember seeing things they didn't actually see. This helps us understand why so many people, convicted on eyewitness testimonry, are being set free by DNA evidence.
August 31, 2009
"Learning" Depression
Depression is "spread primarily by social interaction in the family and in other intimate relationships." At least according to Michael Yapko in his article Secondhand Blues in the September/October 2009 issue of Psychology Today.
He supports his thesis with evidence from several areas of research. For example, "neurological evidence [shows] that the apathy and withdrawal of mothers who have postpartum depression show up in the baby's brain as an underdeveloped emotional region."
We have long known that depression runs in families, but the main reason may not be genetic. The more significant contribution to depression may actually come from what we learn in the family, our...
(1) "Explanatory style" - the meaning we attach to life experiences.
(2) "Cognitive style" - how we think and use information.
(3) "Coping style" - how we manage stress and adversity.
(4) "Problem-solving style."
(5) "Relational style."
According to the article, "All of these are acquired through socialization forces in the family, the modeling and transmission of enduring patterns of thinking feeling, and relating to others. We learn to think and to interpret and respond to events through the cumulative effect of our socialzation - the kinds of parenting received, the kinds of explanations offered, the influence of fmaily members, the teachings of others."
Another aspect of this is that, "Long-term epidemiologic studies show that depression intensifies from one generation to the next. Today's parents represent the largest group of depression sufferers raising the faster-growing group of depression sufferers. We are on average four times more depressed than our parents and ten times more than our grandparents."
Wow! Now I really feel depressed. Thanks, Michael.
He supports his thesis with evidence from several areas of research. For example, "neurological evidence [shows] that the apathy and withdrawal of mothers who have postpartum depression show up in the baby's brain as an underdeveloped emotional region."
We have long known that depression runs in families, but the main reason may not be genetic. The more significant contribution to depression may actually come from what we learn in the family, our...
(1) "Explanatory style" - the meaning we attach to life experiences.
(2) "Cognitive style" - how we think and use information.
(3) "Coping style" - how we manage stress and adversity.
(4) "Problem-solving style."
(5) "Relational style."
According to the article, "All of these are acquired through socialization forces in the family, the modeling and transmission of enduring patterns of thinking feeling, and relating to others. We learn to think and to interpret and respond to events through the cumulative effect of our socialzation - the kinds of parenting received, the kinds of explanations offered, the influence of fmaily members, the teachings of others."
Another aspect of this is that, "Long-term epidemiologic studies show that depression intensifies from one generation to the next. Today's parents represent the largest group of depression sufferers raising the faster-growing group of depression sufferers. We are on average four times more depressed than our parents and ten times more than our grandparents."
Wow! Now I really feel depressed. Thanks, Michael.
August 30, 2009
Drink Something Warm, Think People Are Warm
So, you think your behaviors are soley the product of your free-will? Social Psychologists say maybe not.
One classic study by Lee Ross at Stanford (1993) showed that simply changing the NAME of a game can change participants' behavior. The game they created for the research could be played either competively (one wins money, the other loses) or cooperatively (they both win some money).
Participants had been nominated for the study by friends who described them as either "competitive" or "cooperative" by nature. They were randomly assigned to two groups. The only variable that was changed was the name of the game. For one group, it was called "The Wall Street Game." For the other group, it was called "The Community Game." 3/4 of those who played the Wall Street version played it competitively, regardless of their "nature." Only 1/4 who played the Community version played it competitively.
Their game-playing behavior was affected by the name of the game they were playing.
Lawrence Williams and John Bargh did another interesting study reported in their 2008 article in Science, "Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth."
41 participants were asked to take a cup of either hot coffee or iced coffee on a 15-second elevator ride up to a colleague on the next floor where the research was going to be conducted. They were given a task to complete to distract them from the true purpose of the study, then they were asked to rate the personality of a person described to them as "intelligent, skillful and industrious."
According to the article, "The participants who'd earlier held a hot coffee rated the man more 'warmly', for example describing him as more good-natured and generous, than the participants who'd held an iced coffee."
They liked a man they had never met better simply because they had held a cup of hot coffee.
Among the researchers' conclusions was, "Experiences of physical temperature per se affect one's impressions of a prosocial behaviour toward other people, without one's awareness of such influences."
Are there any real-world applications of this discovery? You betcha.
Meeting your blind date for the first time? Hand him a cup of hot chocolate during your initial conversation.
Being interviewed for a job? Offer a cup of hot coffee to the interviewer.
One last comment on the research: the temperature of the coffee did not change the participants' opinion of how ATTRACTIVE the man was, so I can't help you with that part. You are on your own.
One classic study by Lee Ross at Stanford (1993) showed that simply changing the NAME of a game can change participants' behavior. The game they created for the research could be played either competively (one wins money, the other loses) or cooperatively (they both win some money).
Participants had been nominated for the study by friends who described them as either "competitive" or "cooperative" by nature. They were randomly assigned to two groups. The only variable that was changed was the name of the game. For one group, it was called "The Wall Street Game." For the other group, it was called "The Community Game." 3/4 of those who played the Wall Street version played it competitively, regardless of their "nature." Only 1/4 who played the Community version played it competitively.
Their game-playing behavior was affected by the name of the game they were playing.
Lawrence Williams and John Bargh did another interesting study reported in their 2008 article in Science, "Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth."
41 participants were asked to take a cup of either hot coffee or iced coffee on a 15-second elevator ride up to a colleague on the next floor where the research was going to be conducted. They were given a task to complete to distract them from the true purpose of the study, then they were asked to rate the personality of a person described to them as "intelligent, skillful and industrious."
According to the article, "The participants who'd earlier held a hot coffee rated the man more 'warmly', for example describing him as more good-natured and generous, than the participants who'd held an iced coffee."
They liked a man they had never met better simply because they had held a cup of hot coffee.
Among the researchers' conclusions was, "Experiences of physical temperature per se affect one's impressions of a prosocial behaviour toward other people, without one's awareness of such influences."
Are there any real-world applications of this discovery? You betcha.
Meeting your blind date for the first time? Hand him a cup of hot chocolate during your initial conversation.
Being interviewed for a job? Offer a cup of hot coffee to the interviewer.
One last comment on the research: the temperature of the coffee did not change the participants' opinion of how ATTRACTIVE the man was, so I can't help you with that part. You are on your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
