mind over matter

To the seven of you, thanks. I just wanted to quickly apologize for my update infrequency these past few weeks. Things have been, well, crazy in my other classes. The good news for you is that I’m making a commitment to post more consistently between now and the end of the quarter. So, thanks for not totally writing me off as hopeless, and please enjoy the content to come!

If you’re searching for evidence that life’s not fair, look no further: a new study published in the Journal of Health Psychology says that acne sufferers shun exercise and experience poorer quality of life.

My first thought was, “No, if you have bad skin, at least build up a nice bod!” After all, being a But-her Face is better than nothing, right? But the reasons provided by the study sort of make sense. Dr. Martyn Standage of the University of Bath explains:

“Fear of having one’s skin evaluated by others has implications for physical and social well-being. Sport and exercise activities provide many opportunities for the skin to be exposed to evaluation. Due to this, acne sufferers may become so anxious about their appearance that it prevents them from participating in physical activity.”

The research, which involved 50 young-to-middle-aged adults from an acne support group, also found that acne sufferers who believe others negatively evaluate their skin experienced poorer quality of life and lower self-esteem.

Sometimes I skip the gym because I’m afraid it will make me break out (all that sweat and 12-hour-old makeup), but I never thought about the converse. Still, I think psychologists should try to find a way to combat ‘dermatological social anxiety’ (Accutane?), because the last thing these people need is extra pounds. Kidding aside, acne sufferers really could use some of the psychological benefits of exercise. In 1999, a study led by James Blumenthal found that exercise was as effective an antidepressant as antidepressant drugs themselves. What with the trifecta of bad skin, low self-esteem and poor quality of life, acne sufferers could really use the exercise-induced endorphins.

Maybe the solution is to buy them all home-use treadmills?

One of the largest eating disorder treatment centers in Britain has asked social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook to close down pro-anorexia Web sites. In response, the sites made the brilliant excuse that it’s difficult to distinguish between support groups and pro-eating-disorder groups. Aha.

For the answer, let’s turn to my former my newsroom-mate David Rivelli, wrote an article this fall about pro-anorexia web sites for Medill Reports-Chicago. He sums it up rather well:

“The sites offer tips on how to hide anorexia from family members, encouragement to push for weight-loss goals, displays of graphic images that serve as motivation and a platform for a twisted support group.”

Another clever twist from Facebook:

“A spokesperson for Facebook said the site supported the free flow of information. “Many Facebook groups relate to controversial topics; this alone is not a reason to disable a group.”

I’m all for free speech, but a simple Google search brought up Web sites that made me absolutely nauseated. Is this what our founding fathers had in mind when they protected our right to uncensored expression? 

Northwestern research always gives me a little thrill (I was an undergrad psych minor and sometimes recognize the names), and the latest study is interesting to boot. Background: High self-monitors are people who can accurately read a social situation and use that to interact with others. They’re generally well-liked and successful. So, for socially adept people, life is peachy, right?

Not entirely, according to this study brilliantly entitled “The Dark Side of Self-Monitoring: How High Self-Monitors View Their Romantic Relationships” (such a nice apocalyptic ring.) That’s right: high self-monitors are less committed to and less happy in their relationships than low self-monitors. Seems that high self-monitors are more tactful and cautious and therefore less open and honest with their significant others. It’s difficult for high self-monitors’ partners to read just how invested their significant other is in the relationship.

“It’s not that high self-monitors are intentionally deceptive or evil,” [lead researcher Dr. Michael] Roloff said. “They appear to have an outlook and way of achieving their goals that makes them attractive to us socially but that prevents them from being particularly happy or loyal in their romantic relationships.”

 Way to maintain the doom-and-gloom tone, man. I guess the message here is moderation: be candid with your partner, even when it’s uncomfortable, but save the brutal honesty for the Big Issues. This is a bit refreshing: urging the social superstars to make a change!

I was just thinking about how my “Depression” category, first in the list, has looked sad lately, so I decided to stop ignoring the frequent depression-related research that trickles through my news feeds. But after creaking open the floodgates, I was crushed by the sheer volume of depression news that’s cranked out every day. I’d noticed it, vaguely, and brushed it aside as boring (think endless headlines like “Depression, Hostility Risky Combination for Heart Disease” and “Getting ‘Off Meds’ Has Consequences”,) but it’s really quite astounding.

 Usually I hate this journalistic shortcut, but in this case it’s telling: a Google News search for “Depression” yields 23,171 hits from today only. Why the deluge of depression-related reporting? I knew depression is common, but I was still surprised to find these statistics on the National Institute of Mental Health’s website:

It’s great that research is so heavily invested in easing such a common disability. I wonder, does funding for research usually correspond to the prevalence of an illness?

Alright, somebody get the Pulitzer panel on the phone, because I have an entry for Best Lede, drawn from an article in the New York Times today:

“Why does it often seem that men enjoy playing video games more than women? Perhaps because they do.”

Poetry. This is actually an interesting study, though. Eleven men and eleven women played a simple video game while an MRI machine tracked their brain activity. They were just told to click on images of a ball, but they noticed that if they kept the ball from hitting a wall, they “gained ground” (whatever that means.) Men performed better than women, but here’s the surprising bit: while “playing,” a part of the brain involved in feelings of addiction and reward became much more activated in men than in women.

Researchers kept the game “neutral,” so we can’t chalk men’s relative enjoyment of video games up to the often-violent themes. Turns out they just, well, like it more. Wow, guys, it really doesn’t take much to get you excited, does it - clicking on images of a ball?

Valentine’s Week is over, but I’m keeping things lovey-dovey by posting an interview with a dear friend who has recently gotten engaged (aww). Catherine, you must tell me if I’m getting too personal - I forget that others have qualms about strangers peering into their personal lives (I guess it’s easy to be open when there’s little to report, eh?). 

For a class assignment, I had to interview someone (anyone) relevant to my blog topic, edit the Q&A way, way down, and post it here. Please click on the button below to listen to my interview with Catherine Ryan, an editorial assistant in the Happiness department of SELF magazine, and an all-around super person. After the cut, you’ll find a full transcript of the edited interview, which is a bit oxy-moronic, I know.

Six questions with Catherine Ryan

  [Read more →]

Another quickie today. My friend Megan Brown is writing a three-part series for the Daily Northwestern about her foray into online dating. Going beyond her maverick field reporting, she also spoke with an expert about the stigma attached to internet match-making:

“People don’t want to admit they have to go out and pay for a service,” says Stephanie H. Blake, an assistant professor in the Communication Department of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs…”People your age, in college, are surrounded by people you can meet. Some people see it as a failure, like ‘I couldn’t meet people the traditional way, so I had to go online.’”

 And she’s right, there is something slightly sheepish in admitting you set up a Match.com profile. Perhaps it smells of desperation, the active self-promotion and browsing of potential mates. But in reality, isn’t it a more efficient way of scoring a phone number? Isn’t it more pleasant to gchat with a handsome stranger about your mutual love for Emily Haines and Strangers to Ourselves than to be slobbered all over on a Saturday night at John Barleycorn?

On a related note, a friend agreed to try crazyblinddate.com with me weekend after next, and I’ll be blogging about it afterward for your reading pleasure. I’m not ashamed to admit it, but then again, I’m (a) doing it as a piece of stunt journalism and (b) not doing anything that involves tedious profile customization. If (a) and (b) were not true, would you judge me?

Happy Valentine’s Day! I’ll make this one quick so you can get to dinner on time.

College psychology departments love throwing romantically-minded events around Valentine’s Day (witness our own Dr. Finkel’s “Can You Ever Just be Friends?” lecture, held yesterday; if I were a more intrepid reporter, I would’ve attended, but I had a category recitation to prepare.)

Harvard University is taking it up a notch tonight with an event bearing the tagline “Science is Sexy.” There will be lectures on the science of sex, a DJ, plenty of booze and a fashion show “designed to highlight the science of physical attraction.” I guess that means student models will be strutting their stuff in duds that highlight the ideal waist-to-hip ratio.

 My favorite line:

“I’ve never seen so many jazzed-up students in my life,” said Marc Hauser, one of the organizers of the event and a professor of psychology, organismic and evolutionary biology, and biological anthropology at the university.

I would’ve gone with an exclamation point there. Now, be honest - you thought it said orgasmic biology, didn’t you?!

I just came across a new study and did a little dance. It is fascinating, it is Valentine’s Day-appropriate, it happened here at Northwestern and - yes indeed - I know some of the subjects myself.

New research shows that men and women are looking for the same thing in a partner - but they don’t realize it. You can read the actual study here. On paper, men claim that looks reign supreme, while women finger earning power as the biggest turn-on. (We must be talking pre-First Kiss.)

All lies. When it comes to face-to-face interaction, both sexes desire the same things in a romantic partner. In order, we want:

The researchers gathered information from 163 undergraduates before and after they mingled in speed-dating situations. So what’s the take-home message here?

“Forgo the shopping list,” Finkel said. “You might think you know on paper what you want in a partner but you should consider going out with someone who doesn’t necessarily fit with your shopping list. You might surprise yourself.”

Maybe that means tossing your reservations to the wind and trying something crazy, like a last-minute double-blind date via www.crazyblinddate.com, which launched in Chicago on Monday. It’s nearly Valentine’s Day, people - let yourselves fall in love!

 Or at the very least, be okay with going for the hot guy simply because he’s hot. You never know what’ll come of it…