mind over matter

Photo by victoriapeckham

Well, it’s nearly Valentine’s Day, and love is in the air. Not the air within a ten-foot radius of me, mind you, but I’m sure it’s out there somewhere. So, since I am a hopeless romantic at heart (and making a concerted effort not to sound bitter), this week’s posts will be all about love, romance, relationships, kissing and sex. And maybe also chocolate and romantic movies, which are currently more applicable to my life. Ah, grad school and its 20/80 male-female ratio.

Some fascinating new research in the journal Evolutionary Psychology claims that “kissing is in fact part of an evolved courtship ritual.” All that smooching gives us chemical and tactile clues about our genetic compatibility and reproductive possibilities with the other person. In other words, kissing is a means of determining the likelihood of a long-term romantic connection. And here you thought it was all in good fun.

The researchers hypothesised that the male preference for open-mouthed, wet kisses allowed them to access subtle information about a female’s reproductive status because a woman’s saliva and breath odour is known to change across her menstrual cycle. Male saliva also contains measurable amounts of the sex hormone testosterone which can affect libido.

The linked article is full of interesting little tidbits:

• Fifty-nine percent of males and 66 percent of females said they had been in a situation where their romantic interest in a person had waned following a “bad” first kiss. (Obvs.)
• Men are less critical than women of things like bad breath and prefer wetter kisses with more tongue contact. (Good to know.)
• Women were far less likely than men to engage in sex without kissing, and to become jealous if they discovered their partner had kissed someone else - regardless of whether the relationship was long- or short-term. (Hear that, men?)
• Seventy percent of men said they thought kissing their partner was an appropriate way to reconcile following a fight, compared with just 58 percent of women. (Figures.)

Need to brush up on your skills? This blog is mildly obsessed with the topic, and there’s always the classic, super-detailed kissing guide from Girl’s Life. I only know it’s there because I’m targeting a feature for their publication and had to click around the website. But honestly, plenty of men far outside GL’s demographic could use a brush-up…or maybe a good primer.

Mothers Against Dangerous Decisions are gonna love this one: new research suggests that parental involvement leads to less boozing, toking and sexing for college freshmen.

The study, conducted at Brigham Young University (appropriate!), found that students who talk regularly with their fathers were less likely to do drugs or engage in risky sexual behaviors. When students kept in touch with their mothers, they were less likely to drink alcohol. Those who were reportedly tight with their moms engaged in less risky behavior overall. No word on the relative effect on Rock and Roll. 

“For parents, the fact that closeness plays a strong role is a message to not be overbearing,” Walker said. “Having a close relationship promotes the child wanting to open up and share what’s going on rather than the parent having to intrusively solicit the information from the child.” Walker and her colleagues agree that delaying adulthood results in an extension of parents’ period of service to their children.

It seems that tab-keeping parents delay independence for their 18-year-olds, but in a good way. Sounds like a win-win-win situation to me: parents keep in close touch with their teenager, so said teenager engages in fewer don’t-tell-Mama behaviors. But then again, maybe this just has something to do with good parents teaching their children right vs. wrong from the start?

                                                                            photo by technicolorcavalry

Before you pull out your credit card, consider whether you’re just drowning your sorrows in an extravagant purchase. A new study from four universities found that sadness, even temporary, leads people to open their wallets wide. Participants watched either a sad video clip or an emotionally neutral one, then were given the opportunity to trade some of their participation cash for a water bottle. On average, the newly saddened group offered to pay about four times as much for the water than the group that watched the neutral video.  

“This is a phenomenon that occurs without awareness,” Jennifer Lerner, a Harvard professor who studies emotion and decision making, said in a phone interview. “This is really different from the idea of retail therapy, where people are feeling negative and want to cheer themselves up by shopping. People have no idea this is going on.”

The researchers concluded sadness can trigger a chain of emotions leading to extravagant tendencies. Sadness leads people to become more focused on themselves, causing the person to feel that they and their possessions are worth little. That feeling increases willingness to pay more - presumably to feel better about themselves.

I’m not having the best weekend, and I did make buy a dress on impulse today. Now I come home, see this, and feel guilty about the random purchase. Thanks a lot, researchers. Next thing we know, Target will start screening The Green Mile near the entrance…

  Photo by Kumon

Today I came across the charming headline “Your marriage is going to get worse.” Nice use of direct address, guys. I am praying that this was not the straw that broke the camel’s back for any estranged spouses out there.

(Also, check out the creative illustration of an old couple arguing in front of a laptop. Sample dialogue:

“The address bar just disappeared!”

“What?!”

“The address bar! Disappeared!”

“What?!”)

 A new study from the University of Michigan suggests that the longer a couple is together, the more irritating and demanding they find one another. The same trend was not seen with feelings toward friends or children. Yeesh.

Now for the silver lining, from study authro Kira Birditt:

As we age and become closer and more comfortable with one another, it could be that we’re more able to express ourselves to each other. In other words, it’s possible that negativity is a normal aspect of close relationships that include a great deal of daily contact…Because we found that pattern was overall among the participants, it appears to be normative. It’s not something unusual that happens.”

[Read more →]

By now you’ve probably noticed I’m no slave to timeliness (psshhht psych research is as valid today as it was four days ago, right?), but today I had a real mini-dilemma deciding which fabulous date-specific adjective to focus on: Fat or Super. (In America, it needn’t be either/or.) I ate copious amounts of jambalaya for dinner, and so, feeling I’d paid the Fat modifier sufficient homage, I sat down to write an interesting post on the psychology of elections.

 And then Shankar Vedantam of the Washington Post had to go and write it for me. Hop over and skim it before I summarize - it’s well written and fascinating. I even made it so it’ll open in a new window for you.

 So basically: new research suggests that we shortcut our way through complex issues by picking leaders with whom we share personal values. Then we simply cry “Yeah…yeah!” to whatever those decision-makers decide.

In one experiment, researchers at Yale found that they could sway people one way or another on complex policy issues simply by stroking certain personality traits (like individualism) in framing the facts. In another experiment at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, researchers found that when participants learned about the risks of nanotechnology from different sources, they gravitated toward the views of experts who shared their personal values. Once they’d chosen their value-matched-expert, they stood by the expert’s views, regardless of whether the expert was pro- or anti-nanotechnology. [Read more →]

Well, this seems appropriate on a very Monday-y Monday: new research from Harvard suggests that a 45-minute shallow nap can aid memory performance. Somebody pass me a pillow.

The 33 participants arrived at the lab at 11:30 a.m. and were trained on the declarative memory tasks at 12:15. At 1 p.m., about half the subjects took a nap while the other half hung out, awake. After nap time, all subject hung around until the retest at 4 p.m. Researchers found that, across three very different memory tasks, those who napped performed better than those who sat in the lab, but only if those napping subjects had “strongly acquired” the memory tasks during the training session.

This is why I am convinced offices should provide napping rooms complete with cots, pillows and lavendar sachets. Did you know Northwestern’s library has a “napping room” with a little bed and lamp in the second floor women’s restroom? (Think about it - ewwww.)

 The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) offers the following tips on getting a good night’s sleep:

• Follow a consistent bedtime routine.
• Establish a relaxing setting at bedtime.
• Get a full night’s sleep every night.
• Avoid foods or drinks that contain caffeine, as well as any medicine that has a stimulant, prior to bedtime.
• Do not bring your worries to bed with you.
• Do not go to bed hungry, but don’t eat a big meal before bedtime either.
• Avoid any rigorous exercise within six hours of your bedtime.
• Make your bedroom quiet, dark and a little bit cool.
• Get up at the same time every morning.

Interesting! A recent report by the World Health Organization (WHO) found that suicidal risk factors are similar across the globe, according to an article in PsychCentral. Risk factors include having a mental disorder and being female (check), younger (check), unmarried (check) and less educated (phew).

The study compared 17 different countries on suicide prevalence and risk factors. Though risk factors were consistent, the prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors varied. For example, 15.9 percent of people in New Zealand reported having suicidal thoughts, while only 3.1 percent of people in China did. This is somewhat shocking to me, as in my mind New Zealand is associated with sunny skies and Flight of the Conchords, while China is…well, China. However, researchers noted that this discrepancy might have to do with underreporting in countries where suicidal thoughts are less acceptable.

The consistency of risk factors is somewhat surprising as well - if young, unmarried, uneducated females are universally the group likeliest to commit suicide, well, what the heck does that mean? It isn’t a simple nature/nurture debate, because the gender part is genetic while the others are lifestyle factors. Why, for example, aren’t men in China buckling under the pressure of being men in China and emerging as the likeliest suicide attempters in the country? And what can we do with this knowledge now?

Continuing with this unintentional theme of “Research proves what I could’ve told ‘em for free,” researchers concluded that growing older hurts decision making. This isn’t to say that older people have a more difficult time making decisions, as I mused a few days ago in a post about clinical hoarding. Rather, seniors have a hard time making good decisions. Scammers everywhere are shocked, I’m sure.

Even someone with high intellect and good memory, the study said, may be undergoing changes in the prefrontal part of the brain that affects behavior. “The first manifestation of this cognitive decline may be exercising poor judgment and decision making in many important real-life matters,” the study said.

Ironic that teenagers are usually the ones blamed for poor decisions! This is not good news for senior citizens already battling ageism, one of the last “acceptable” forms of discrimination, which my friend Laura Kaliebe discussed in a recent post. I’m left to wonder if - and hope that - all those morning sudoku’s will provide a little protection down the line.

First of all, I would like for you to note that I am writing about a story dated February 1, 2008. That’s right, folks, I am living in the future. Think about that for a second.

In tomorrow’s news, scratching feels good because it pacifies the area of the brain associated with unpleasant or aversive memories and emotions. And here you thought it just took your mind off that mosquito bite.

Researchers scratched at the lower legs of 13 healthy adults while watching their brain activity with MRIs. The article’s headline, “Why Scratching Relieves an Itch,” is a bit misleading because the participants weren’t actually itching in the first place. This is a bit odd to me. If something is inherently pleasurable and fairly harmless, shouldn’t we be inclined to do it? Why am I not scratching at my leg right now, just for the little mood-boost? Alright, curiosity has got the better of me, I’m trying it now…and it doesn’t feel bad, but I’m not all into it either. Try it yourself, I know you want to…see what I mean?

Anyhow, my badgering aside, there are clinical applications here, for chronic itchers (and, presumably, chronic scratchers), according to lead researcher Gil Yosipovitch, M.D.:

This is the first real scientific evidence showing that itch may be inhibited by scratching…Of course, scratching is not recommended because it can damage the skin. But understanding how the process works could lead to new treatments. For example, drugs that deactivate this part of the brain might be effective.

I love the first part of that quote: This is the first real scientific evidence showing that itch may be inhibited by scratching. You don’t say, Doctor. You don’t say.

Whoa. Scientists, probing around in a man’s deep brain tissue, unexpectedly triggered a sense of déjà vu and a super-vivid personal memory. You can read the article here.

While they were identifying potential appetite suppressant sites in the hypothalamus by stimulating electrode contacts that had been implanted there, the patient suddenly experienced a feeling of ‘déjà vu.’ He reported the perception of being in a park with friends from when he was around 20 years old and as the intensity of the stimulation was increased, the details became more vivid.

Ahh! Does anyone else find this freaking bizarre?! Especially since I understood the sensation of déjà vu to be misclassification by the brain of something unfamiliar as familiar. Last year, ScienceDaily did an article on chronic déjà vu-sufferers. The researchers in the story called déjà vu “not a delusion, but a dysfunction of memory.” [Read more →]