The late American artist and televised painting teacher, Bob Ross, was best known for his positive attitude summed up by his classic saying, "we don't make mistakes, we just have happy accidents." Because of this cheery outlook he has been much loved and often parodied in our culture:
If Bob Ross was creative, would he be likely to think aggressive memes like this one were funny? Was Bob Ross creative because he was so positive or because he was a complex person (he was also a Master Sergeant in the United States Air Force, a rescuer of injured squirrels in Muncie, Indiana, the father of three boys from two marriages, a painter of - as he often said - "happy trees"). Chang, Chen, Hsu, Chan, and Chang (2015) were interested in a similar question: does a person's style of humor relate to that person's level of creativity? To answer this, they conducted a large study (1,252 participants) with Chinese 13-year-olds living in Taiwan. The measures that they used were translated into Chinese and were chosen because they worked in cross-cultural settings (meaning that the nationality of the participants should not be an issue that will influence the results). The teenagers competed a Humor Styles Questionnaire and a cluster analysis of their answers placed them into groups. Similar to past research, four styles emerged: 1) Positive Humor: joking about yourself in a positive way (showing off) or joking about others in a positive way to show that you like them. 2) Negative Humor: joking about yourself in a negative way (putting yourself down) or joking about others in a negative way to be aggressive. For example, implying that nobody will date you! 3) General Humor: joking in both positive and negative ways about yourself and about others. In this case humor can be used to both befriend and to be aggressive at times. 4) Humor Deniers: below average use of any type of humor. Among other measures, the participants took a modified figure drawing test of creative thinking. Each teenager received a piece of paper with 27 versions of the Chinese character for "Human" printed on it. They were asked to doodle upon each symbol to create drawings that incorporated that shape. The drawings were rated on: Fluency (how many of the 27 versions were drawn upon in ten minutes); Flexibility (the number of categories in the drawings' themes); Originality (how novel the drawings were compared to others); and Elaboration (the number of details in the drawings). The most robust results strongly supported a theory of creativity: Intrapersonal Variability. In this perspective, "...individuals who hold opposing or conflicting traits...[or have] complex personalities..." are more creative (p. 307). The teenagers whose main humor style was General, or full of contradictions and complexity, scored noticeably higher than the other students on all four ratings of creativity. On the other hand, one comparison did seem to support an alternate theory: the Positivity Perspective suggests that positive humor is linked to more creative thinking. Only in the ratings of Elaboration did participants with Positive Humor outscore the participants with Negative Humor. If we accept that Bob Ross was a creative man, the most prominent results of this study support that his complex personality and conflicting life experiences may have increased that creativity. Chang et al. explain that creativity may be enhanced when people are able to accept their inner conflicts (self-integration) or when their complex personalities allow them to be psychologically flexible in their thinking. At the same time, the Elaboration finding implies that Bob Ross' attention to detail in his paintings may have been, at least in part, related to his positive outlook on life. The Positivity Perspective assumes that using positive humor is associated with being in a positive mood, which is assumed to allow one to be more creative, or in this case, to embellish creative acts. Although Bob Ross' humor clearly included positivity, his life experiences may have led him to embrace a General Humor style, which in turn may have fostered his creativity. In that case Bob Ross would probably find this week's meme funny, even though its humor is aggressive. Further Reading: The Chang et al. (2015) article can be accessed through your local college library. Watch a talk by Dr. Robert Provine, a psychologist and neuroscientist, on laughter. Read a press release from the Association for Psychological Science about a research study by Vohs, Redden, and Rahinel (2013) that links a messy work environment to increased creativity. BONUS: Feel the positivity! Feel the creativity! The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) Digital Studios created a really amazing musical remix of Bob Ross using manipulated clips from his television program.
This week in the United States we will celebrate Thanksgiving. In addition to feelings of gratitude, family gatherings can also stir up heated arguments about political issues and other differences between family members. Today's meme suggests that the neurotransmitter found in turkey meat, the centerpiece of most Thanksgiving feasts, may be an antidote to this problem:
Tryptophan naturally occurs in turkey meat and other common foods (including beans for vegetarians). Its presence in the brain has been linked to an increase in Serotonin, another neurotransmitter associated with positive mood and decreased aggression. Could eating Tryptophan-rich foods decrease fighting? An experiment with non-human subjects suggests that a touch of Tryptophan might help. Walz, Stertz, Fijtman, dos Santos, and de Almeida (2013) divided male mice into five groups: four groups received a dose of Tryptophan that was 1%, 2%, 3%, or 10% of 30 ml of a carrier liquid; the last group was the control group so they did not get any Tryptophan in their liquid. Immediately after dosing, the mice were individually exposed to an intruder: a stranger male mouse. This encounter lasted for five minutes as the test mouse's behaviors were recorded. This experience occurred eight times for all male mice from the five groups. When the animals' reactions were coded across these trials, Walz et al. found that the mice dosed with a 1% and 2% Tryptophan solution were less likely than the control group to aggressively bite or to threaten the stranger mouse from the side. The other doses did not show a significant reduction in these aggressive behaviors, and none of the doses was related to changes in non-aggressive behaviors, such as activity levels or grooming. At a low dose, Tryptophan is speculated to raise Serotonin levels enough to take the edge off this stressful experience; at larger doses it may be that Serotonin rises so high that it sends a feedback signal to the mouse's body to decrease Serotonin production thereby undoing any good effect of supplementation. The authors concluded, "...that low doses of [Tryptophan] are able to reduce aggressive behavior in male mice....Tryptophan supplementation may be an alternative treatment for aggression in groups that exhibit such behavior" (p. 400). Of course, we can't be sure that the same dose of Tryptophan (especially if it is combined with cranberry sauce, mashed potatoes, and stuffing) would have the same effect on humans or that it would diminish verbal aggression as it did physical aggression. Walz et al. encouraged further research: "To control aggressiveness, a person's diet may be an important factor" (p. 397). Until then, when discussions get heated at your next family gathering, try changing the subject to something that everyone can agree on. Until we know the details about Tryptophan we will apparently have to rely on Adele.
Further Reading: The Walz et al. (2013) article is available online and the Psychology and Neuroscience journal article can be accessed through your local college library. People used to think that the Tryptophan in turkey was responsible for that sleepy feeling so many of us have after the big meal. Find out what is more likely to blame in this Live Science piece by Tanya Lewis. Why do family celebrations so often turn into family fights? Read Olga Khazan's article in The Atlantic: "Why families fight during the holidays."
One of my students asked me if I make the memes that I use in this blog: the answer is "no" - truly, I am too busy grading papers. Fortunately there are a lot of memes floating around social media. Most of the time I start with a meme and then do a literature search to find recent research on that topic. Other times, like this week, I find a great article then search Google Images for a meme to match. Sometimes I stumble upon the perfect combination and reach article/meme perfection:
Would it be mean to trick a hurting person into thinking that a piece of candy is actually a tablet of pain reliever? The answer would be, "yes" if the act of swallowing that orange Skittle would have no effect on her headache - but what if it helped just as much as a real Advil? Faasse, Martin, Grey, Gamble, and Petrie (2015) conducted a simple experiment to answer a similar question. They recruited 87 New Zealander university students (83% female) who frequently suffered from headaches. The students were each given four identical-looking tablets: two were labeled "Nurofen," a brand name for Ibuprofen - like Advil in the United States, and the other two were labeled "Generic Ibuprofen." Thus, each of them believed that he or she received two brand name pills and two generic pain-relief pills. However, the researchers had tricked them with some mild deception! For each participant one of the tablets labeled "Nurofen" was actually a placebo (a sugar pill) containing no medicine - much like a Skittle; likewise, one of the tablets labeled "Generic Ibuprofen" was also a placebo. The remaining two tablets were always identical doses (400 mg) of Ibuprofen; there was no difference beyond how they were labeled. This was a within-subjects experiment because all participants experienced all of the possible versions of the tablet: placebo labeled Nurofen; Ibuprofen labeled Nurofen; placebo labeled Generic; Ibuprofen labeled Generic. The participants were instructed to use the tablets for their next four headaches, and the order of the pills was dictated by the researchers for counter-balancing. Each time the participants got headaches they had to rate the intensity of their pain, take the designated tablet, wait one hour, and then rate the intensity of any remaining pain and note any side effects. As you would expect, the overall results showed that Ibuprofen did a better job than the placebo at resolving headache pain. What was more interesting to Faasse et al. was that placebo and Ibuprofen tablets labeled Nurofen were rated equally well on pain relief. In this case, the Placebo Effect was clear: just believing that you took brand name Ibuprofen was enough to cure your pain as well as the real medicine would! Alternatively, when participants took the tablets labeled "Generic Ibuprofen," pain relief was much higher from the actual Ibuprofen than from the placebo. Again participants' beliefs influenced their experiences: in this case a mistrust of off-brand medicines overcame the Placebo Effect. Side effect data followed a similar trend: when participants believed that they were taking "Generic Ibuprofen" they reported more side effects from the placebo tablets than from the actual Ibuprofen (that really could produce side effects)! When placebos produce negative effects this is call the Nocebo Effect. This Nocebo Effect was limited to the Generic labeled tablets. No difference in side effects was seen between the placebo and Ibuprofen when they were labeled Nurofen, so a mistrust of off-brand medicine encouraged the Nocebo Effect. Faasse et al.'s experiment would suggest that orange Skittles stored an old Advil bottle would probably fix your sister's headache just as well as actual medicine! On the other hand, if she saw the Skittles come out of a store brand (generic) bottle she might be complaining an hour later: her head would still hurt and the "pills" you gave her are upsetting her stomach. Of course, the side effects of tricking your sister would be far worse than a headache, so please don't try this at home. Further Reading: The Faasse et al. (2015) article is available online or can be obtained through your local college library. Curious about the placebo effect in medicine? Get two perspectives from an article in the New England Journal of Medicine by Drs. Ted Kaptchuk and Franklin Miller, and from a TED talk by Dr. Lissa Rankin. Orange Skittles resemble Advil: similarities between candy and medicine can lead to accidental poisoning of children. Play the Pill vs Candy game from California Poison Control. Can you tell the difference between a sweet treat and a pharmaceutical? BONUS: Our suspicion of generic brands extends to other products as well. Watch some of the Buzzfeed crew attempt to tell the difference between off-brand and brand name cereals.
Sharing with those less fortunate is a value that many parents wish to pass on to their children, and one that is emphasized in many traditional religions. Apparently it is valued by guinea pigs as well:
Recently, a study about sharing has received a lot of mention in the media. Decety, Cowell, Lee, Mahasneh, Malcolm-Smith, Selcuk, and Zhou (2015) examined the influence of religion on the sharing behavior of more than 1,000 school children (ages five to twelve) in six different countries (USA, Canada, South Africa, Turkey, Jordan, and China).
Children were tested individually in their schools using a modified version of The Dictator Game. Each child was offered 30 stickers and asked to choose their ten favorites. They were then informed that there would not be enough time to test all of the children at the school, so they should donate some of their stickers to the children who would otherwise receive none. The number of stickers that children chose to donate served as the measurement of sharing. The parents of these participants also completed a questionnaire about their religious identities and religious practices, including the number of times per week the family attended religious services and the family's level of spirituality. The most commonly reported identities were: Muslim (43%); Non-religious (28%); Christian (24%). The results grabbed media attention because the children from Non-religious families shared more stickers than the children from Muslim or Christian families. This effect was the same regardless of the level of religious practice or belief of the Muslim or Christian children. The trend was strongest among the older children in the sample (ages 8-12 years) which implies that the religious children had a longer time to internalize the values of their faiths. The authors noted that children's ages, socioeconomic statuses, and countries of origin were also predictive of sharing, but they did not explore these results in depth. In the United States, headlines like "Religion makes children more selfish, say scientists," and, "Nonreligious children are more generous," splashed across the Internet. Some people delighted in the irony of reported selfishness from people whose religions teach generosity. Others, especially some practitioners of Islam and Christianity, were offended. But do Decety et al.'s results deserve these strong reactions? It is true that the study demonstrated a statistical difference between Non-religious children when compared to Muslim and Christian students. That means that the results are unlikely to be due to chance, luck, or accident. So this trend is worthy of further study in future investigations of how religion influences sharing and other prosocial behaviors. On the other hand, the average number of stickers shared by these groups were very similar. Non-religious children shared on average 4.09 of their ten stickers; Muslim and Christian children shared 3.20-3.33 of their ten stickers. The difference was consistent enough to reach statistical significance, but small enough that we would be unlikely to see a practical difference in our daily lives. In other words, if an elementary school class was made up of children from these three groups, the teacher would be unlikely to notice more or less generosity from any one group: all of the children would donate about three or four of their stickers to students who had none. At the same time, these data tell us that we cannot assume that religious children will share more than non-religious children. In the United States this is increasingly important to understand as the number of Americans reporting that they are atheist, agnostic, or of "no religion in particular" has increased to almost 23% of adults.
Along with trick-or-treating and attending parties, some people celebrate Halloween by paying to get scared: they walk through the spooky scenes of a haunted house while actors jump from the shadows, scream, and taunt them.
Why do we like to get a little scared? The James-Lange theory of emotion would suggest that we experience our bodies' fear response, racing hearts and sweaty palms, but then mislabel that arousal as "fun" or "excitement." As well, haunted houses keep us in the present moment so we cannot worry about anything else at the same time. People who were stressed before going into a haunted house often report the highest amount of relaxation from the experience. But do we all get scared by the same things? Muroff, Spencer, Ross, Williams, Neighbors, and Jackson (2014) wondered if White and AfricanAmerican men and women have different ideas of what causes fear. They used a cognitive interview technique by asking a convenience sample of almost 200 participants (ages 18-85) a single question, "What makes and object or a situation fearful?" (p. 156). From their answers the researchers distilled five categories of what makes something scary: External Locus of Control: feeling out of control; not knowing what is about to happen. Harm/Danger: risk that something would hurt or threaten your health/life. Phobias: an irrational, intense fear of something that provokes immediate anxiety and/or panic. Past Experience: having had or knowing about someone else's past experience with something that was fear-inducing. Self-Perception: your belief that you will find something scary or not be able to handle something. Muroff et al. then reexamined the participants' responses to see how often all of the participants and participants from specific groups included these categories in their original explanations about what makes things scary. From these qualitative data, they found that (p. 157): *The most common category for all participants was External Locus of Control: it was mentioned in 35% of all explanations. This was followed by Harm/Danger (29%) and Phobias (18%). *White women were 1.5 times more likely than African-American women to include External Locus of Control as part of their answers. *External Locus of Control appeared most in the explanations given by White women and the least in explanations given by White men. *Older participants' responses were more likely to include External Locus of Control. *White men were 3.5 times more likely than African-American men to include Past Experience in their responses. *Men were more likely than women to include references of Self-Perception. *Phobia was most common in the answers given by participants who had not completed high school. This would suggest that these same individuals would react differently to various aspects of a haunted house. The majority, but especially White female and older participants, would be scared by unpredictable situations: dark passageways; rooms filled with disorienting lighting and mirrors; going around blind corners; not being able to find the way out of a room. White male participants would be scared of things that remind them of bad situations that they, or people they know, have experienced. For example, an actor throwing a fake punch toward them, or a torture scene that includes an actor being kicked in the genitals or having a thumb hit by a hammer. Males, in general, would also be afraid if they were led to believe that they could not handle a situation. This could be induced by playing recorded messages like, "You are helpless," "Others have come here but nobody leaves alive," or, "You can fight but you are too weak to escape," as they walk through the haunted house. Finally, participants who had not completed high school might be particularly afraid if the horrific scenes included common phobia triggers. For example, spiders, needles, blood, tight spaces, or high heights. Muroff et al. were not interested in how to build the scariest haunted house. Instead they were curious if people from different groups may have different interpretations of an assessment question that is commonly used to diagnosis phobias. Their results suggest that age, education level, sex, and race can influence how people conceptualize fear, and this may affect the accuracy of that phobia assessment. The authors emphasized that the results likely reflect truly scary aspects of American culture. For example, women tend to have less financial power related to men; money allows you to better control your experiences. I would also add that women are more often cautioned to control their environments to prevent dangerous situations (e.g.; never walk alone; don't leave your drink unattended; walk with purpose and stay in well-lit areas). This may be particularly true for White women as the media more often portrays them as victims of violence - even though it is AfricanAmerican women who actually experience more violence. Perhaps this is why White women were more likely to endorse External Locus of Control as something that induces fear. More clearly, Muroff et al. wrote, "Research on coping mechanisms for discriminated and stigmatized groups suggests that African American men and women may depend on various mechanisms for coping such as external locus of control and social learning" (p. 158). In this case external locus of control means that discrimination is explained as being random or a product of the situation, and thereby not caused by the person experiencing this unfair treatment. The authors explained that this beneficial coping mechanism would be less likely to be part of African Americans' explanations of fear. Additionally they wrote, "Our findings also suggest that White respondents in this sample mention past experiences in their conceptualizations of fear more frequently than their African American counterparts. African Americans' experiences may be influenced more by unpredictable events including acts of racism and discrimination." Because of this, "African Americans may focus on the present and future in order to cope with adverse life experiences" (p. 158). When your past is full of fear it might not help you distinguish if a new situation is scary or not. We can all exit a haunted house, but we can rarely step outside of our own experience of biological sex, race, and culture. The first step is to realize that we are all different: the same environment may be fun for some and scary for others. Further Reading: The Muroff et al. (2014) article can be accessed through your local college library. Listen to National Public Radio's "Hidden Brain" podcast on the Science of Fear. Read about Neuroscientist Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett who creates a yearly haunted house in her basement based on the neuroscience of fear. The proceeds of the event are donated to charity. BONUS: Watch when talk show host Ellen Degeneris sends her executive producer and "Modern Family" star, Eric Stonestreet, through a haunted house. These men are both White: does their behavior match the results of Muroff et al.? Andy Goes to a Haunted House with Eric Stonestreet, Part 2 | EllenTV.com
