Sharing is caring

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.

Further Reading:

An online version of the Decety et al. (2015) study is temporarily available; the Current Biology publication can be accessed through your local college library.

Read Phil Zuckerman's opinion piece on "How secular family values stack up," from the Los Angeles Times.

Regardless of their religion or lack of religion, parents can get excellent tips from the Ask Dr. Sears article on "11 ways to teach your child to share." This list also includes when you should not force your child to share.

BONUS:

From the children's television program, Sesame Street, a music video "Share It Maybe;" an educational parody of Carly Rae Jepsen's "Call Me Maybe."

What we fear is a mirror

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 African American 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 African American 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

In defense of Kristen Stewart

There are many memes mocking Kristen Stewart for not smiling. This week's meme is one of them:

 
However, if you type her name into a Google Images search, and then do a second search for her Twilight co-star Robert Pattinson you will see that the two actors are both pictured smiling and not smiling. When I did this (albeit unscientific) search and compared the first 25 images for both actors, I found that both of them were shown smiling 11 times and not smiling 14 times. So why the shade for Kristen while Robert's image remains sparkling?

Part of it is due to gender expectations in our culture: women smile more than men and are punished more for not smiling. The most recent review of this phenomenon occurred in 2003 when LaFrance, Hecht, and Paluck published a meta-analysis of 162 studies. A meta-analysis allows researchers to statistically combine the results of many studies to determine if a difference exists and how big (or meaningful) that difference may be. The overall results from LaFrance et al. confirm that across these studies there is a small to moderate, or noticeable in the real world, effect of men smiling less. Fans are used to seeing women smiling so they notice and react poorly when Kristen Stewart bucks that gender expectation. Likewise, fans are used to men not smiling so the same facial expressions from Robert Pattinson go unnoticed as if they were invisible.

The researchers also used statistics to examine the different contingencies of the studies to see what is associated with this difference getting smaller or larger. In some cases it would come out smaller than the overall difference: in these situations women and men were closer to smiling at similar rates. Many of these effects were very small or even close to zero, which means that in the real world these contexts would likely be associated with very few observable differences between women and men:
*when people are not aware of being observed
*when they are in a group of four or more people (so the focus is not on one person)
*when they are not interacting with the people around them
*when they are very familiar with each other
*if they are comfortable because there is low pressure to impress
*when they are talking to a younger person or an older person
*when they are paired with a woman
*when they are interacting with somebody of the opposite sex
*when they share equal power with the other person
*if they are asked to play a role that requires caretaking, like taking care of a baby
*if they are forced to argue against the other person
*if people are from England
*if people are African-American
*if people are middle aged or senior citizens

In other cases this gender difference would come out larger than the overall difference: in these situations women were even more likely to smile than men. These range from moderate to almost high effects, which means that in the real world these contexts would likely be associated with actual observable differences between women and men:
*when people are alone (and presumably self-conscious about being observed)
*when people are alone but asked to imagine another person being with them
*when they are paired with a man
*if they are asked to persuade somebody
*if they have to reveal personal information about themselves
*if they are made to feel embarrassed
*if people are Canadian
*if people are teenagers (a time of gender intensification)

Looking at the results LaFrance et al. note that,"...the extent of sex differences in smiling is highly contingent on social groups and social factors" (p. 326). In simpler language, men tend to smile less than women, but when this happens and how obvious it is depends on the characteristics of the situation. For example, there are personal and cultural factors like age, race, and culture. There is also the question of what is required in this situation: do they have to persuade; argue; or be in charge of the care of another being? Who are they interacting with - do they share the same age, sex, or level of power in the situation?

Notably for Kristen Stewart the results also demonstrate that people are more likely to show this gender difference when they know that they are being watched, when they imagine that they are being watched, and when they feel like they need to make a good impression (or instead are facing embarrassment). So another reason that fans may be critical is that, by being an actor and a public figure, she is constantly in these contexts yet she does not do what most women would do in those situations, she does not smile. On the other hand, if Robert Pattinson reacts the same way on the red carpet he is actually doing what we expect men to do in those situations, so once again he escapes criticism. And that really bites.

Further Reading:

A pdf of the LaFrance et al. (2003) article can be accessed on Dr. Elizabeth (Betsy) Paluck's website.

 Kristen Stewart may wish to work on her smile - not for the fans - but for how smiling, even fake smiling, might help her deal with stress. Read the Association for Psychological Science (APS) coverage of research done by Kraft and Pressman (2012).

Kristen Stewart is not alone. Read Emily Matchar's article, "Memoirs of an Un-Smiling Woman," from The Atlantic.

Your right prefrontal cortex is working SO well today!

A quick way to annoy a professor is to miss a class, come back the next day and ask this teacher, "Did I miss anything important?" Out of anger or to be funny your professor might smile and answer sarcastically, "Oh, NOOOOOO...we NEVER do anything IMPORTANT in here. All we did was waste our time so you didn't miss ANYTHING important."  If you understand that this is sarcasm you will a) understand that you did miss something important and b) your professor is probably annoyed with you.

On the other hand, if you don't understand that this is sarcasm you would believe that you did not miss anything important and also not catch that your professor is irritated by your question. This latter situation is frustrating for everyone involved and it is also the topic of today's memes:

Sarcasm is a form of irony that requires some sophisticated cognitive processes to understand it. Most children do not understand sarcasm until their pre-teen years (and then it is SO fun for the parents when their kids say sarcastic things to them) and people with autism struggle with this throughout their lives. We also see that people with Alzheimer's Disease and individuals with certain types of brain damage may not catch when something is said sarcastically.

Shamay-Tsoory, Tomer, and Aharon-Peretz (2005) conducted a neuroscience study to pinpoint locations in the brain that are associated with the understanding of sarcasm. They compared 17 healthy people to 41 people who had brain lesions in very specific areas. The lesions were mostly the result of head injuries but a few were due to tumors or stroke, but none of the affected individuals had problems with speech or "general intellectual functioning" (reasoning ability and verbal fluency).

All participants were tested on their abilities to identify emotions communicated by vocal tone and facial expression, to recognize mistakes in social situations (faux pas), and to interpret sarcasm. Reading people's emotions from their tones and facial expressions is a necessary part of understanding sarcastic statements in which those things conflict with the literal meaning of what is said. Recognizing when a person has committed a faux pas is considered to be a good test of Theory of Mind. Theory of Mind is the ability to understand what another person is thinking - a skill that is required to decode sarcasm. 

The sarcasm task consisted of four stories that were always told in two ways: one that depicted a sarcastic remark and one that depicted a literal remark. For example (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2005, p. 300):

             Joe came to work, and instead of beginning to work, he sat down to rest. His boss 

             noticed his behavior and said, "Joe, don't work, too hard!"

            Joe came to work and immediately began to work. His boss noticed his behavior and

            said, "Joe, don't work, too hard!"

The participants listened to the stories and after each version they were asked comprehension questions ["Did Joe work hard (p. 300)?"] and questions to assess sarcasm understanding ["Did the manager believe that Joe worked hard (p. 300)?"].

Shamay-Tsoory et al. reported small but statistically significant results: specifically, the participants who had the worst problem understanding sarcasm tended to have lesions in their right side prefrontal cortices. This was especially true for participants whose lesions went into the ventromedial portions of this area. Participants whose lesions were located in the posterior part of their brains did not have problems understanding sarcasm: they scored the same as the healthy individuals.

The authors state that these findings make sense in relation to the functions of these locations. The entire prefrontal cortex is associated with understanding language pragmatics or the social aspects of language. The right prefrontal cortex in particular helps us to: decode the parts of language related to feelings; to understand the parts of language that are not literal; to recognize faux pas; and to "get it" when somebody is being funny. The ventromedial area adds to our experience of empathy: being able to feel the emotions of other people. These cognitive skills are necessary to understand that a speaker is saying one thing but trying to communicate another - often angry or humorous - message.

This relationship was further reinforced because the participants with right prefrontal lesions also struggled with Theory of Mind (problems recognizing faux pas) and emotion identification (problems matching tone and facial expression to particular feelings). In past research these two skills were required to understand sarcasm.

So the next time an adult (who does not have autism or brain damage) does not understand your sarcasm...

instead of getting annoyed you can smile and simply remark, "Your right prefrontal cortex is working SO well today."

Further Reading:

You can access a pdf of the Shamay-Tsoory et al. (2005) article here thanks to the American Psychological Association.

A blogpost from the Gottman Institute: sarcasm might be fun when you are joking and having a good time, but if you are sarcastic when arguing with your partner this may predict the end of your relationship.

National Geographic Channel's "Brain Games" offers an online, interactive experience of the brain and language.