This article may be use for the learning outcomes genetic influences on behavior, effect of hormones on behavior and for dispositional explanations of altruism. A recent study suggests that disposition for niceness may be in our genes, as they code for oxytocin levels, which contributes to altruistic behavior.
Born nice? Niceness may reside in genes, study finds
0 Comments
This is a link to Dr Fisher's test to see what personality you are and what other characters that you are compatible. Because Dr Fisher is a well renowned researcher, one would hope that her test is scientifically valid:
Dr Fisher's personality test Apparently I am a Negotiator type, which makes sense. Here is a website that explains the results as well: http://digitalcitizen.ca/y/ This is an interesting article about a couple where both have the diagnosis of autism (which makes it hard to read other people's emotions) It might be used as an example for the role of communication in relationships.
Navigating love and autism This is an interesting study that suggests that the use of mobile phones may make us less socially responsible.
Smartphones may make people selfish This is an interesting short movie about a love competition involving MRI scanning. The person who experiences most love sensations as measured by brain activity wins.
Stanford love competition This is an odd relationship - if you have asymmetrical features, you are more likely to have good leadership skills. Asymmetry is related attraction, so maybe those who are not as attractive are motivated to develop other skills. Who knows?
http://news.discovery.com/human/do-asymmetrical-features-111021.html Here is a website where you can test the symmetry of your face (and indirectly your leaderships skills ;)) You'll need a front face picture of yourself. http://www.anaface.com/ Recently I read the upside of irrationality by the behavioral economist Dan Ariely which I think is a very interesting book. Here is a summary of the most interesting points that are made in the book:
1. The problem of big bonuses. Ariely suggest that over-paying a person for a job may not actually improve his performance, because it may cause too much pressure. This is in accordance with the Yerkes-Dodgson law, that too much body arousal will impair performance. This is particularly true for cognitive demanding tasks. Ariely, Gneezy, Loewenstein and Mazaar (2009) went to rural India to have participants perform tasks of varying mental difficulty. The participants were promised a bonus if they performed well. There were three conditions in this experiment. Those who were payed with low bonuses (their bonus was equal to one day of their regular pay), and medium bonuses (their bonus was equal to two weeks of work) did fairly similar, whereas those who were promised a high bonus (equal to two months of their regular pay) often choked under the pressure. 2. Meaningful work. If your work seem to have little meaning you will naturally become less motivated to work. It is even so that we may be biologically constituted to prefer to earn our food rather than to be given it. This behavior is called "contrafreeloading". Animal research shows that animals to a certain extent prefer to earn their food through some slightly cognitive challenging tasks rather than just to be given it. This may because even animals need intellectual stimulation. Ariely, Kamenica and Prelec (2008) payed participants to build lego constructions where the constructions where the construction was taken apart while the participants were building the new one. Compared to the control group, seeing your construction being immediately taken apart after building it reduced the motivation for participants to continue building. 3. The Ikea-effect. If we have made something ourselves, we have a tendency to like it or prefer it more than other things, especially if it was difficult to make. In one experiment, Ariely and colleagues had participants create origami figures and then had an auction. It turned out that participants were ready to pay more for their figure than control participants. 4. The not-invented here bias. People value an idea more if they feel that have come up with the idea themselves. In one of Ariely's studies, participants were eager to spend more money and time for an idea that they had come up with themselves rather than an equally functional idea that they had not come up with themselves. In another experiment, the researchers jumbled the words for a proposed solution so that the participants had to think a bit in order to figure out the solution. By doing so, they valued the idea more than participants that had been presented the idea in a meaningful order. 5. The human need for revenge. There seems to be a tendency in humans to take revenge, even while doing business. For instance, if you receive poor service, you are less likely to give tip. In one experiment by Ariely, participants in a cafe were asked to take part in an experiment but while the experimenter were explaining the procedure, his phone rang. The experimenter answered the phone, talked for some time and did not apologize to the participant. When the participant was given her pay, it so happened that she "accidently" had been given more than she was supposed to get. Even when asked to count the bills, participants were less likely to inform the researcher that they had been given too much money. However, if the experimenter had apologized for him talking on the phone, participants were more honest. 6. On adaptation. Even though that it seems that the famous "if you slowly heat the water for a frog it will boil"-experiment is a tall tale, humans and other organisms are very adaptive. This has for instance been shown in experiments on pain (those with past experiences of pain (such as injuries) have higher thresholds for pain. Some research also suggest that for painful experiences, it is better to get over them as quickly as possible, instead of prolonging them with interruptions or breaks. However, the opposite is true for positive experiences, as shown on experiments using massage . A pleasant experience will be more pleasant if it includes interruptions or breaks. 7. On attraction. Ariely and company looked at data from internet dating websites and speeddating and found that some of the stereotypes of men and women seem to be true. Men are more likely to initiate contact with women and the attribute they look for foremost is beauty. Another finding was that people tend to look for attributes they have themselves in others (if they are beautiful they tend to prefer someone who is beautiful, if they are intelligent they tend to prefer someone who is intelligent), another support for the similarity hypothesis of attraction. The research also suggested that experience from dating may have a person alter what they look for in another person. For instance, if they cannot get someone who is intelligent, they may think it is more important that the person is kind. In English there is a saying: "Birds of feather flock together". This seems true on attraction, and Ariely's research may also suggest how this process works. Or, as the author Beate Grimsrud said in a lecture that I once attended: "If I can't have the one I want I'll take the one who wants me". Another finding of Ariely's research is that online dating works better if people are allowed to have conversations (such as chat functions) instead of developing better attribute searches for what you are looking for. In short, it is better to create a online dating site that treat people as people instead of consumer goods. Dating in reality also went much better (people liked each other more) if they had first met each other online. 8. On altruism. Small, Loewenstein & Slovac (2003) conducted an experiment where participants were asked to donate money they had just earned. In one condition, the charity project was described in statistical terms. In the other condition, the participants were presented with a picture and information about a girl who needed help. As expected, participants were likely to give more money to the victim that they could recognize. This is called the identifiable victim effect, and it seems true what Stalin once said, that "A death of one person is a tragedy, one million is statistic". The inability to imagine people suffering in high numbers is a problem, because it makes us more likely to help people who are suffering in smaller numbers (such as individual catastrophes) but less likely to help people who are suffering in larger numbers (such as malaria and AIDS) Proximity and vividness (ability to imagine something) are factors that affect bystanderism. A third factor is the drop-in-the-bucket-effect. If the need is great, but our individual contribution is small, we may not see the point why we should donate money. Thinking rationally also seems to reduce levels of altruism. In a variation of the Small, Loewenstein and Slovac experiment (2005) participants were asked to either do solve math problems or to write down their feelings towards George Bush Jr. Participants were more likely to donate more money if they had activated their emotional processes compared to if they were thinking rationally. Here is a link to the original study. 9. The effect of emotion on decisions. We already know from research on emotion that it is difficult, if not impossible to stop our initial emotional reaction. After some time we are able to make more rational, appropriate decisions. However, emotions affect our decisions constantly. In one experiment on the ultimatum game, participants were primed to feel either angry or happy by watching video clips. They then played the ultimatum game, which is a test to see the "irrational" need of fairness in transactions. The ultimatum game works in the way that one participant suggests a split of an amount of money. If the other participant accepts the split they walk away with their money, but if he doesn't accept it no one gets the money. There is a tendency for us no to accept unfair splits, even though it is not rational to do so (because then we get no money at all). If participants were primed to be angry, they were less likely to accept unfair splits. However, if they were happy, they were more likely to do so. An interesting phenomena related to the effect of emotion on decisions is self-herding. Self-herding is the tendency to conform to earlier decisions that we have made. It is as we tell ourselves that we need to make a similar decision because we have made another decision before and want some consistency in our actions. Self-herding may also explain how we develop certain personalities or habits. I just read a Swedish blog on some recent studies on relationships.
In one Swedish survey study by Andersson Arndten (2009) it was found that there is a correlation between stress in relationships and stress at work. People who are in stressful relationships have more problem coping with stress at work and vice versa. A German study from 2008 supports the similarity hypothesis of relationships. People who were similar to each other in agreeableness and conscientiousness were more likely to develop and maintain a long term relationship. Another Swedish study from 2010 investigated where couples meet. Remember that these findings might be culture specific. 29 percent of all Swedish couples met through friends and 23 percent met through the internet. 14 percent met each other through work and 13 percent met each while going out. 8 percent met through a common activity or hobby. 3 percent met during vacation and only 2 percent met each other in a public space (like the park or the supermarket) Recently there was an honor killing in Sweden and I therefore want to comment on this type of murder. It relates to one sociocultural explanation of violence, which is culture of honor. Many cultures have or have had a culture of honor, but in some they are now extinct. You can also find a culture of honor in criminal gangs, where reputation and taking revenge for a member of the group is important.
A honor killing is about a family member bringing shame to the family. It could be a daughter that is sexually active before marriage or refusing an arranged marriage. Because of the honor of the family is at stake, they have the duty to kill her. Sometimes the murder includes torture. It is important to point out that honor killings exist among many different ethnic groups, and that not everyone within an ethnic group support honor killings. Educated people from an ethnic group that support honor killing are less prone for the action. This article relates to altruism:
Nice guys finish first I have written about something similar in an earlier article on altruism. At the moment social psychology is undergoing a paradigm shift. We used to believe that humans were essentially egoistic and driven by self interest for helping behavior. Now we open up for the possibility that we are altruistic and cooperative by nature. The "survival of the nicest", so to speak. David Brooks, the author of the column, has come out with a new book. It is called The social animal. Here he talks about his book on tedtalks: David Brooks: The social animal |
AuthorThis is my class blog for IB Psychology. Here I will publish reflections on psychology, reviews of psychology books, recommended links, lecture notes, and information on psychology topics that are not covered by the syllabus. You are free to add comments or ask me questions. Archives
August 2015
Categories
All
|