Men, listen up, you may learn something about why no women want you to kiss them.
Ladies, rank the following choices from most preferred to least preferred:
1. An unwanted or forced kiss from an attractive, moral man.
2. An unwanted or forced kiss from an attractive, immoral (liar, cheater, thief) man.
3. A consensual kiss from an attractive, moral man.
4. A consensual kiss from an attractive, immoral (liar, cheater, thief) man.
Those were the choices 148 female undergraduate women were asked to imagine in some recent research by Corinna Elliott and Adam Radomsky reported in the journal, Behaviour Research and Therapy.
Not surprisingly, "a forced kiss from an immoral man was the worst casescenario" and made the most women want to wash out their mouths.
Also not surpsingly, "none of the women who imagined a consensual kiss with a moral man washed afterwards."
More surprising was, "the women who imagined a forced kiss from an otherwise moral man... felt just as sullied as women who imagined a forced kiss from an immoral man." The determinant wasn't, is he moral or immoral. It was, is the kiss unwanted?
And, more of the participants preferred a consensual kiss with an immoral man than a forced kiss by ANY man. "Indeed, so-called 'moral' men who imposed unwanted kisses on women were subsequently rated by the female participants as immoral."
Guys, in case this was too subtle for you, let me sum it up: 1) women prefer being kissed by a moral man rather than an immoral one; 2) women don't want to have a kiss forced on them by any man; 3) men who force a kiss on a woman are viewed as immoral.
So, clean up your act and make sure the kiss is consensual.
January 16, 2010
January 15, 2010
PETA Evidently Not PETP
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, got into ethical trouble this week.
They used a photograph of Michelle Obama in one of their ads against the use of animal fur. They used it without her permission.
I guess there is a reason they aren't named People for the Ethical Treatment of People.
I have always wondered why they were against the wearing of fur but not against the wearing of leather. Doesn't the animal have to die in order to give the models in their ads their shoes? I could be wrong about that.
Ethics are technically the same as morals. The difference is that "ethics" comes from the Greek language and "morals" comes from the Latin. They both refer to standards of right and wrong behavior.
The Big Dog of moral development was Lawrence Kohlberg, who used a series of 11 stories to determine that all people are in one of three levels of moral development. In other words, how they determine what is right and what is wrong.
His research consisted of telling his stories of people behaving certain ways to people of all ages and then asking them, "Was the person in the story right or wrong to do what he did?"
Perhaps Kohlberg will add a 12th story: "A group of animal-rights advocates used a person's photograph in one of their adds, implying that she supported their cause, when, in reality she had not given them permission to use her picture. Was that group right or wrong to use her picture?"
They used a photograph of Michelle Obama in one of their ads against the use of animal fur. They used it without her permission.
I guess there is a reason they aren't named People for the Ethical Treatment of People.
I have always wondered why they were against the wearing of fur but not against the wearing of leather. Doesn't the animal have to die in order to give the models in their ads their shoes? I could be wrong about that.
Ethics are technically the same as morals. The difference is that "ethics" comes from the Greek language and "morals" comes from the Latin. They both refer to standards of right and wrong behavior.
The Big Dog of moral development was Lawrence Kohlberg, who used a series of 11 stories to determine that all people are in one of three levels of moral development. In other words, how they determine what is right and what is wrong.
His research consisted of telling his stories of people behaving certain ways to people of all ages and then asking them, "Was the person in the story right or wrong to do what he did?"
Perhaps Kohlberg will add a 12th story: "A group of animal-rights advocates used a person's photograph in one of their adds, implying that she supported their cause, when, in reality she had not given them permission to use her picture. Was that group right or wrong to use her picture?"
January 14, 2010
Stop Me If I've Told You This One Before
Some people remember things they have been told much better than they remember what they have told other people. "Have I already blogged on this?"
The reason for this is two kinds of memory: "source memory" and "destination memory." Being better at one than the other seems to be the result of what we are focusing on when we are told or when we tell.
According to Nigel Gopie and Colin MacLeod's recent article, Destination Memory: Stop Me if I've Told YouThis Before, in the journal, Psychological Science, "we're poor at remembering to whom we said what because of the self-focus associated with disclosing information, rather than receiving it. This self-focus ... disrupts the memory processes that would otherwise associate what was said and to whom."
I guess the best relationship would be between a person who has poor Destination Memory and one who has poor Source Memory. One can't remember if they have already told the story, and the other can't remember if they have already heard it.
Maybe even better would be a friendship between people for whom the friendship is more important than how many times they tell the same stories.
Want to get better at remembering to whom you have told what? Gopie & MacLeod's research suggests how: "try focusing less on yourself and more on your listener the next time you share an anecdote."
Actually, that's pretty good advice for approaching life itself: focus less on self and more on others.
The reason for this is two kinds of memory: "source memory" and "destination memory." Being better at one than the other seems to be the result of what we are focusing on when we are told or when we tell.
According to Nigel Gopie and Colin MacLeod's recent article, Destination Memory: Stop Me if I've Told YouThis Before, in the journal, Psychological Science, "we're poor at remembering to whom we said what because of the self-focus associated with disclosing information, rather than receiving it. This self-focus ... disrupts the memory processes that would otherwise associate what was said and to whom."
I guess the best relationship would be between a person who has poor Destination Memory and one who has poor Source Memory. One can't remember if they have already told the story, and the other can't remember if they have already heard it.
Maybe even better would be a friendship between people for whom the friendship is more important than how many times they tell the same stories.
Want to get better at remembering to whom you have told what? Gopie & MacLeod's research suggests how: "try focusing less on yourself and more on your listener the next time you share an anecdote."
Actually, that's pretty good advice for approaching life itself: focus less on self and more on others.
January 13, 2010
Bruce Isn't Just "Dancing in the Dark"
Bruce Springsteen has been singing in the background while I work in my office this morning. He just sang about a Social Psychology concept in his song, Dancing in the Dark.
We now know that what Gustave Le Bon wrote in his 1896 book, The Crowd, was wrong. There is no such thing as a "group mind" when a mob forms. There is no unanimity observed in crowd behaviors. SOME break windows, but not EVERONE breaks windows. SOME loot, but not EVERYONE loots.
There are four steps necessary for people to behave badly in a mob, when they would not do so if by themselves.
1. Something has to happen to weaken the force of authority.
2. The visibility of the authority must be low.
3. The relationship to authority must be low.
Bruce sang about the fourth step in his Dancing in the Dark phrase: "You can't start a fire without a spark."
4. There needs to be a trigger.
Something, someone, has to start the behavior in the crowd. Think of a "wave" at a sporting event. It doesn't just happen, someone has to start it. There must be a "spark," to use the Boss' term for the "trigger." Someone has to be the first in the crowd to do the behavior, for others to start doing the same behavior.
Po' Lazarus, from the sound track for the George Clooney movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, is playing now. So far, no psychology in it yet. I'll keep you posted.
We now know that what Gustave Le Bon wrote in his 1896 book, The Crowd, was wrong. There is no such thing as a "group mind" when a mob forms. There is no unanimity observed in crowd behaviors. SOME break windows, but not EVERONE breaks windows. SOME loot, but not EVERYONE loots.
There are four steps necessary for people to behave badly in a mob, when they would not do so if by themselves.
1. Something has to happen to weaken the force of authority.
2. The visibility of the authority must be low.
3. The relationship to authority must be low.
Bruce sang about the fourth step in his Dancing in the Dark phrase: "You can't start a fire without a spark."
4. There needs to be a trigger.
Something, someone, has to start the behavior in the crowd. Think of a "wave" at a sporting event. It doesn't just happen, someone has to start it. There must be a "spark," to use the Boss' term for the "trigger." Someone has to be the first in the crowd to do the behavior, for others to start doing the same behavior.
Po' Lazarus, from the sound track for the George Clooney movie, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, is playing now. So far, no psychology in it yet. I'll keep you posted.
January 12, 2010
Jack Johnson's Dreams
I have been in my office today getting ready for this semester's classes. My IPod has been playing my collection of mp3 files which includes all of Jack Johnson's music. He is a great musician, whose guitar style is proving difficult for me to emulate on my Martin. (Would you believe that my grandaughter, whom I taught to play the guitar, has been showing me how Jack gets the sounds he does. She's going to end up being a better guitar player than I am.)
A moment ago Jack sang about one of the theories of dreaming. No, he isn't a psychologist, but in his song, Better Together, on his In Between Dreams album, Jack actually sums up the "Dreaming for Survival Theory" in 13 words:
"All of these moments might just find their way into my dreams tonight."
I like this theory of what is going on in our dreams. It basically says that our dreams are the product of our brain continuing to work on problems we encounter during the day.
Maybe I will play Jack's song in class when we talk about what is going on in our dreams because I know that I can't sum up the "Dreaming for Survival Theory" in 13 words.
My students would probably tell you that I can't say anything in just 13 words. Maybe I'm dreaming to think I can.
A moment ago Jack sang about one of the theories of dreaming. No, he isn't a psychologist, but in his song, Better Together, on his In Between Dreams album, Jack actually sums up the "Dreaming for Survival Theory" in 13 words:
"All of these moments might just find their way into my dreams tonight."
I like this theory of what is going on in our dreams. It basically says that our dreams are the product of our brain continuing to work on problems we encounter during the day.
Maybe I will play Jack's song in class when we talk about what is going on in our dreams because I know that I can't sum up the "Dreaming for Survival Theory" in 13 words.
My students would probably tell you that I can't say anything in just 13 words. Maybe I'm dreaming to think I can.
January 10, 2010
"A" Day
Today, January 10, is "A-Day." It's not a national holiday. You won't find it on your calendar. "A-Day" is found only on the Grady calendar.
January 10 is the day I adopted my two daughters in 1980. I married their mother when they were 7 & 9, and I adopted them when they were 9 & 11. They became "Grady in '80." We've always celebrated "A-Day" with parties and gifts.
They lived with their biological father until ages 5 & 7, then with me until they left for college. They both married after college. One is an educator, the other works in a medical lab. One has three children, the other four dogs. Grandogs are not nearly as much fun as grandchildren. Both girls grew up into healthy, productive, balanced adults who have make me proud that they call me their "real dad."
Where's the psychology in all of this?
How about the opportunity to observe Nature vs. Nurture? Can you see any of me in my girls? Don't just think physical characteristics. What about personality traits, behaviors, morals/values?
How about watching Resilience? Resilience is the positive capacity in some people to cope with disruptive or traumatic events. How do young children respond to parental dysfunction and divorce of their parents, financial strain that follows the divorce, then their custodial parent remarrying? Why are some children resilient and others not?
How about why some children who gain a stepparent who makes every mistake the stepparent manuals say not to make don't display any of the "step" problem-behaviors that other stepkids struggle with?
There is psychology everywhere. Watch for it. Be a student of human behavior. Be curious. Ask questions about behavior. Be scientific in your observations. You might make a good psychologist.
January 10 is the day I adopted my two daughters in 1980. I married their mother when they were 7 & 9, and I adopted them when they were 9 & 11. They became "Grady in '80." We've always celebrated "A-Day" with parties and gifts.
They lived with their biological father until ages 5 & 7, then with me until they left for college. They both married after college. One is an educator, the other works in a medical lab. One has three children, the other four dogs. Grandogs are not nearly as much fun as grandchildren. Both girls grew up into healthy, productive, balanced adults who have make me proud that they call me their "real dad."
Where's the psychology in all of this?
How about the opportunity to observe Nature vs. Nurture? Can you see any of me in my girls? Don't just think physical characteristics. What about personality traits, behaviors, morals/values?
How about watching Resilience? Resilience is the positive capacity in some people to cope with disruptive or traumatic events. How do young children respond to parental dysfunction and divorce of their parents, financial strain that follows the divorce, then their custodial parent remarrying? Why are some children resilient and others not?
How about why some children who gain a stepparent who makes every mistake the stepparent manuals say not to make don't display any of the "step" problem-behaviors that other stepkids struggle with?
There is psychology everywhere. Watch for it. Be a student of human behavior. Be curious. Ask questions about behavior. Be scientific in your observations. You might make a good psychologist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
