The prevalence of text message usage has increased dramatically in the last decade.

I’m not sure if you noticed but there are a lot of people using cell phones these days. In fact, today’s cell phone is probably inaccurately named.  Cell phones do still make phone calls of course but they are  increasingly becoming more like portable computers than merely phones.  This dramatically improved functionality of cell phones has not necessarily made texting more prevalent per se but it has opened the door to less costly plans and more text-friendly telephones.  As a result, the prevalence of text message usage has increased dramatically in the last decade.

What started as a novelty nearly 20 years ago has since grown into somewhat of a cultural fixture.  With all of the texting lingo, it is easy to understand why there is debate about whether or not texting is harming today’s children. It seems a little unlikely that the new linguistic patterns found in texting is negatively impacting today’s youth but one has to wonder: What exactly are kids saying?  More directly, what types of things is today’s youth using text messages for?

Who Are They

Crispin Thurlow and Alex Brown of the University of Washington-Department of Communication

What They Did

Thurlow and Brown utilized 159 first year college students from Cardiff University (Wales, UK) and analyzed 544 individual text messages for 1.) Message Length 2.) Main linguistic content, such as actual text (like this), or emoticons  ( :-p ), and abbreviations (Laymanpsych is Gr8).

What They Found

As is perhaps expected, Thurlow’s findings seem to indicate that users are often brief.  The technology limits the length of the messages to (typically) 160 characters, most users used around 65 characters (though there was a lot of variation; some used much more, some used less).   This size limit seems to explain the need for abbreviations; the findings reveal that of the 544 examples, there were 1401 abbreviations (or about 3 per message). Interestingly, this only accounts for roughly 20% of the content.

Each message was then categorized by content (of the 544 examples, 121 were eligible for categorization) into one of eight categories as follows:

*Informational-Practical: Exchanges of practical details or requests (14%)

*Informational-Relational: Exchanges for requests or personal favors (8%)

*Practical Arrangement: Plans to meet (15%)

*Social Arrangement: Plans for recreational meetings (9%)

* Salutary: Greetings. Often very brief and non-specific (17%)

*Friendship Maintenance: Apologies, support, thanks, etc. (23%)

*Romantic: Maintenance of romantic relationships (9%)

*Sexual: Explicitly sexual overtones. (3%)

*Chain Messages: Long messages passed from user to user (2%)

Separating these eight categories into two groups, “low-intimacy, high transactional” and “High intimacy, high relational”, further reveals that the majority of text messages were to set up or maintain relationships (roughly 61%).

Other themes of note were a large level of humor and general “joy” as well as what Thurlow has described as “Hyper-coordination” in which users updated others with information about looming plans. For example: M25 “C u in 5 min x” or M27 “Where r u? We r by the bar at the back on the left”.  Lastly, texts were frequently used to have separate personal conversations between individuals while within a larger group.  Many, for example, were texts to fellow classmates about the lecture at hand, or about individuals within the group.

What does it all mean?

The study at hand is rather simplistic and on a certain level, one could argue, somewhat foreseeable.  This study seems to make it clear that text messaging has become an imperative communication tool for younger individuals. In the context of a hyper-active world in which people are often running in many directions at once, text messaging appears to be a viable way for people to not just remain in touch with each other but actually increase their social productivity.   Although one could argue that the content of these messages is an abomination to the English language, it’s also a possibility that there is simply a new communication paradigm that has formed.  In areas where speed is not an overly important aspect of the interaction, whether it’s on a term paper or even on Facebook, language appears to remain in tact.

Perhaps for a new form of communication (text messaging), for it to be as efficient as possible for its intended use, requires a new language of its own.  It seems likely that English remains safe and text messaging will continue to facilitate an ever-busy society that still has a strong urge to remain in touch.

Further Reading

Generation Txt? The sociolinguistics of young people’s text-messaging (link to article)

The Psychology of Twitter, Facebook, and Other Social Networking Devices

Although the findings are not firm, it seems likely that violent video games lead to more successful in-game advertising.

The Real World Example

For those who play video games, a completely new world has opened up over the last decade as these gamers (and their games) become increasingly connected to the internet.  No longer are gamers stuck with playing against the computer, no longer are sports rosters outdated, no longer is the game you purchase the final version of the game.  Many video games are played strictly on the internet.

Beyond the entertainment value of incorporating the internet into gaming, there is a monetary value.  In-game advertising is certainly nothing new. However, the addition of the internet to in-game advertising allows for a dynamic experience. The ability to use the internet to target and change in-game advertisements has created a completely new opportunity to capitalize on ads in ways that has never before allowed.  And with this comes an increased desire to spend money on in-game advertising, which will certainly lead to more of it.

This seems harmless to all but the gaming purests whom are bothered by advertisements fudging with their gaming experience.  This begs to question whether or not an in-game advertisement can even be effective if the individual who is suppose to see the ad is too busy killing Nazi’s.  One must also consider whether or not an advertisement in a game where you kill Nazi’s is going to be as effective as say, Sonic the Hedgehog.  It turns out, that such questions are beginning to be answered by researchers.

Who Are They?

Andre Melzer, Brad Bushman and Ulrich Hoffman, The University of Michigan The University of Amsterdam and University of Luebeck

What They Did

Melzer, Bushman and Hoffman developed a 3D driving simulator that allows for researchers to manipulate the scenery (specifically, though not exclusively, billboards) in the game.

Users were split into two groups. The first group played a non-violent version of the game in which they were rewarded for running over geometric shapes.  A second group played the violent version of the game. The only change in the game was that users were rewarded for running over innocent pedestrians (it may be worth noting that when an individual ran over a pedestrian, a loud screaming sound reinforced the act).

Throughout the game billboards were placed in the scenery which displayed 64 corporate brands which were proven (through prior testing) to be well-recognized brands by the general public. Following completion of the simulation, users were given a surprise memory (consisting of two parts) test as well as a questionnaire.

The Memory Test

The first aspect of the memory test presented users with blurred versions of real brands, some of which were in the game, and some were not.  The second aspect was a “free recall” test in which users listed as many of the brands they saw while playing the game as they could.

The Questionnaire

The questionnaire served a few purposes but the most significant question asked the user whether or not the game was violent.

The Results

As expected, most users correctly identified whether or not their version of the game was violent (as per the questionnaire).  There was no difference in the amount of brands that were recalled by users in either version of the game (that is to say that on average, non-violent game players recalled an equal amount of brands as the violent game players). Interestingly though, users who played the violent version of the game were quicker to identify which brands were actually in the game compared to the non-violent game players.

What Does It Mean?

Truthfully, the study is somewhat lacking, and this is recognized by the researchers who intend on further developing the study.  For example, they set up an eye-tracking system in the game but unfortunately it malfunctioned for most of the trials.  Having said that, it appears that violent video games may lead to an increase in awareness of advertisements presented in-game.  When the users played the violent game they appeared more ready to identify brands that they saw while playing the game.

Violence sells but many fear it may negatively impact those who partake in watching violent movies, television shows, and especially video games.  It seems plausible that if violence in fact increases brand awareness when combined with video games that we will see more violent video games capitalizing on in-game advertisement.
Is this a bad thing? That is for you to decide.

More Reading

When Items Become Victims: Brand Memory in Violent and Nonviolent Games (link to article)

Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill : A Call to Action Against TV, Movie and Video Game Violence

Danny from the Biggest Loser lost an incredible 239 pounds

The Real Life Example

Here is a task for you:  Go to Wal-Mart and look around.   America. Is. Fat.  In fact, America is only getting fatter.  There are, of course, many reasons for this and you’ve heard them all before so we shall spare you that story.  As America gets fatter, nighttime television is consumed by the latest and greatest weight loss schemes.  They do not work of course, which is (perhaps) one of the reasons the industry continues to grow.

The reality is that obesity is costing America a fortune while at the same time Washington debates healthcare reform.  An easy solution to both the obesity and health-care problem would be to lose weight. Simple as it sounds, most know that losing weight is far from it.  But why?  As you might imagine, psychologists are on the front lines in trying to find out why.   Recently the winner of a popular reality show lost 239 pounds in less than a year.  Turns out he also won $250,000.  As you might expect, it seems money is one of the best motivators to for weight loss.

Who Are They

Kevin G. Volpp, MD, PhD; Leslie K. John, MS; Andrea B. Troxel, ScD; Laurie Norton, MA; Jennifer Fassbender, MS; George Loewenstein, PhD

What They Did

Volpp et. al. gathered 57 overweight (though otherwise healthy) individuals between the ages of 30 and 70 years old.  The participants were then randomly placed in one of three different groups.  The first group was placed in a lottery system where those who met or exceeded weight-loss goals would have a chance at winning money.  The second group was part of a “deposit-contract arrangement” in which they pooled together their own money.  The money in this group was then split up among the top weight losers within the group.  The final group was given no cash incentive to lose weight.
The groups were all given 16 weeks to lose weight with a goal of losing one pound per week.

What They Found

Volp et al. discovered that those individuals who were given a cash incentive to lose weight performed significantly better than those given no incentive other than their good health.  By the numbers:  53% of the “lotto” group met or exceeded the 16 pound weight-loss goal, 47% of the deposit-contract group met or exceeded the 16 pound goal, and only 11% of the group with no cash incentive met or exceeded the 16 pound goal.  A follow up study revealed that not only did the weight loss end as soon as the cash incentives did for most of the participants, but the weight actually begin to come back.

What it Means

Unfortunately it looks like a random group of American’s isn’t very intrinsically motivated to be healthy.  In fact, by and large it required cold hard cash for individuals to lose weight. Sadly, once that extrinsic incentive was taken away, so was the motivation to lose weight.  What’s scary is that other findings about financial based incentives may mean that those who once lost weight as a result of a cash incentive, may now have even less motivation to be healthier on their own accord.
So is money the answer to a healthier America?  Early indications suggest not, at least not for the long term.  There is some hope, however, in that it is possible to motivate otherwise unmotivated people to do something with a little bit of money.  But for those of us who work every day, this isn’t news at all.  Volpp et. al. do wonder if a longer-term incentive program would begin to actually change the way the participants think by suggesting that a 12-18 month program would result in such drastic weight loss that the extrinsic motivation of cash would begin subside to an intrinsic desire to remain healthy.  Perhaps we should follow up with Danny in a few months to see how he’s doing…

Layman Psych Definitions

Intrinsic Motivation: Intrinsic motivation can be thought of as the internal desire to accomplish something for the sake of accomplishing it.  Intrinsically motivated tasks are still accomplished due to a reward but the reward exists within the task itself.  An example is listening to a song because an individual likes how the song sounds.

Extrinsic Motivation: Extrinsic motivation refers to “external” motivation to drive us to finishing something.  With extrinsically motivated tasks, the desire to complete the task has less to do with the rewards within the task itself and more to do with the rewards that come as a result of the completion of the task.  For example, you go to work to get paid. The work is the task, the motivation is the money you get from the job (this is, of course, unless you love your work).

Further Reading

Financial Incentive–Based Approaches for Weight Loss (link to study)

The Real World Example

We have all been there; the night before the final and you haven’t dedicated a minute to that class on “Maple Syrup” that you took as an elective and thought would be an easy A.  After all, you’ve had far more important things to worry about, like a Madden franchise or perhaps some actual studying on your Intro to Marketing class.  So before you call it a night you dedicate 2 hours to the fine science of Maple Sugaring. You remind yourself that,  “Below-freezing nights and sunny, warm (40 degrees F) days provide optimal conditions for sap to start moving up the tree.”  For the remainder of your night, you cram everything you were suppose to have already known about the fine art of making Maple Syrup into that sponge-like brain of yours in preparation of that test you have at 9:30am the following morning.

Inevitably, you manage a C+, which strikes you as odd.  On one hand, you did procrastinate a little bit but on the other hand you spent 2 solid hours just the night before studying the art and the best you can manage is a 78%.  At least you didn’t fail, right?  But why the heck isn’t 2 hours of study the day before a test about maple syrup enough to get at least a B?  Turns out that it’s not because you’re stupid, it’s just how our brain works.

Who Are They?
Murray Glanzer and Anita R. Cunitz of New York University for The Institute for Behavioral Research, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA in 1966.

Some Background in Memory

Glanzer and Cunitz worked off the assumption that humans have “two” memories. A “working memory” and a “long-term memory”. Working memory, they surmised, is a short-termed memory system that is only in use while you are “working” on something.  Think of working memory as your brain’s post-it note.  Long-term memory is what most of us think of as memory. If something is in long-term memory, we can remember it on demand.  Most people know, for example, that the leader of Nazi Germany was Hitler. In short, long-term memory is the goal in school.  If you are able to store everything you need to know for a test in long-term memory, chances are good that you’ll get an A.

The mistake that many students make is that they think the path to long-term memory is a short one.  In truth, it requires a little bit of effort.  Glanzer and Cunitz’s work begins to explain why.

What They Did

Glanzer and Cunitz designed two studies both relying on an often used model in which the presentation of a list of words to subjects who were then asked to recall as many of those words as possible immediately following the presentation of the list (this procedure is known as free recall). Glanzer and Cunitz knew that the subjects would, in general, be able to recall more words from the beginning and end of the list than the middle based on the work of Hermann Ebbinghaus.  Glanzer and Cunitz tweaked this common methodology two ways.

In the first experiment, they varied the presentation rate of the words.  In some trials, they lengthened the duration between words, and in some they shortened it.

In the second experiment, they varied the delay with which words were presented and when the subject was asked to recall the words. In some trials there was a small duration between the reading of the list and the recall of the list. In others, this duration was lengthened.

What They Found

As expected, Glanzer and Cunitz found a common U-shaped “Serial Position Curve” which displays better recall of the first and last sections of the list but a severe inability to recall words in the middle of the list.  This was expected due to two known effects: the primacy effect (which explains why the begining of the list is remembered more easily) and the recency effect (which explains why the end of the list is remembered more easily).

What they also predicted was that the rate at which words were presented would effect the begining of the curve (the primacy effect).  If words were presented more slowly, more words were remembered early in the curve.

Lastly, they predicted that the duration of time between presentation and recall would effect the end of the curve.  If there was more time between the presentation and recall, less words at the end were remembered.  If there was less time, more words were remembered.

The Serial Position Curve

Explaining What’s Going On

The reason that words in the begining of the list are remembered more is because as the subject is read the words, they have the ability to commit those words to memory, typically by internally repeating them in their head until there is too much information to process. If there is more time to do this, by slowing the pace at which the words are read, for example, you will remember more words.  At this point, near the middle of the list, the brain is relying more on it’s short-term working memory.  This is why recency of the list matters.  Things are only stored in our working-memory for brief periods of time.  Thus, if there is more time between the presentation of the list and recall of the list, there is more of a chance that these words escape our working-memory.

What This Means

I hope that you can make the connection between cramming for a test and this free-recall experiment.  When you are “craming”, you are essentially reading a list of facts to yourself and trying to commit them to memory.  Unfortunately most of these things won’t actually be committed to memory and will be forgotten in a few hours.  This is not to say that you won’t remember anything.  Chances are good that come test time, the things you studied at the beginning of your “cram” session will be recalled, and some of the things at the end of the “cram” session will be recalled.  The majority though, will be lost among many other post-it notes in your brain.

So what can you do? Here are 5 cramming tips:

1. Avoid cramming.  You are better off spending 20-30 minutes a night for the duration of a month or more trying to focus on a small portion of facts

2. If you have to cram, try and study the more important parts of the test at the beginning of your cram session, the next most important things at the end, and the least important things in the middle

3. If cramming is a must, try and reduce the amount of material you study.  If there is a smaller list of things to try and remember, you’ll likely remember more of them.

4. Cramming is about prioritizing.  If you have gotten to this point you are already in trouble.  Focus on the most important material.  You simply can’t remember everything so if you can weed out the trivial stuff then you can dedicate more memory to the important stuff.

5. Did I mention that you should avoid cramming?

(5 points to anyone who see’s what I did with that list)

More Reading

Two Storage Mechanisms in Free Recall (the study)

The Psychology of Learning: Why Context Matters (a laymanpsych article)

The Real World Example

In my early days of college, I would often spend my time studying with music blasting in my ears.  In my later years in school, I was more likely found in a quiet room.  Not surprisingly, perhaps, my grades were better in my later years of school. It’s possible that learning material with something as distracting as music on is simply difficult but it is possible, and perhaps likely, that something else is work here. How do we know this? Because it’s been studied, of course.

Who Are They?

D. R. Godden and A. D. Baddeley of The University of Stirling in 1975.

What They Did?

Godden and Baddeley designed a simple experiment that required deep sea divers (and they were all deep sea divers) to learn material while either on land or while under water.  They were then asked to recall this information in the form of a quiz.

There were four groups of subjects. One group learned material under water, and took the quiz under water.  Another group learned the material on land and recalled the information on land.  Another group learned the material under water and recalled it on land. The final group learned the material on land and recalled it under water.

What They Found?

The point of the quiz was to determine an individuals ability to learn the material. Obviously, if someone performs better on the quiz, we can assume that they learned it better. So what did they find?

When an individual learned the material on land and recalled it on land, they performed fairly well on the quiz.  When an individual learned the material under water and recalled it under water, they too did fairly well (though, slightly less than the former group).  But here is the kicker.  Those who learned under water and took the quiz on land, or learned on land and took the quiz under water, performed significantly worse than the other two groups.  Furthermore, they performed about as equally as bad, despite the fact that those who learned and tested on land were better than any other group.

What This Means?

The takehome here is your ability to recall something in a particular context is directly correlated with the context of where you learned that information in the first place.  So what does this mean for you? If you have a test where the teacher blasts Metallica while you take the test, then by all means, you should listen to Metallica while you study.  When you begin studying for something, ask yourself “How much does this room remind me of my lecture hall” or wherever you are going to be taking your test.

But it’s important to realize that whether you’re wet or dry isn’t the only thing that matters. Many other studies have confirmed the notion that context-dependent learning is real.  This means that the looks and sound and even the smells around you have an impact on your ability to remember things.  Try this, study with a Jolly Rancher in your mouth and then take a test with a Jolly Rancher in your mouth.  The effect is likely going to be small but you never know when the sweetness of a watermelon Jolly Rancher reminds you who the lead the British Expeditionary Force into the 1st Battle of Ypres in 1914 (it was Sir John French, for those of you wondering)

More Reading

Context-Dependent Memory in Two Natural Environments: On Land and Underwater (the article)

The Psychology of Learning: Cramming and why it doesn’t work (A laymanpsych article)

Swat teams, Oakland Raiders fans, The Wicked Witch of The West, the Russian MIGs in Top Gun, ninjas, and L.L. Cool Jay in Any Given Sunday all have two things in common; they all wear black and they are all pretty intimidating.

Our association with Black and Evil is pretty well known and interestingly it does not seem to be attached to a single culture but is instead accepted across many cultures.   Why we associate black with evil is as much (if not more) historical than it is psychological. But what are the psychological implications of this association?  It turns out that this has been studied quite a bit, perhaps most interestingly by a team of researchers from Cornell in 1988.

Who Are They?

Mark G. Frank and Thomas Gilovich of Cornell University in 1988.

What They Did?

Frank and Gilovich wondered what wearing the color black might do to ones aggressiveness on sports teams.  So they designed 4 studies that investigated what wearing black uniforms in athletics did to perceived and actual aggressiveness of the participants involved.

What They Did: Study 1–Semantic Interpretations of Team Uniforms

Frank and Gilovich found 25 subjects who knew nothing of the NFL or NHL and nothing about the corresponding sports (football and hockey, respectively).  The subjects were shown various team jerseys and were asked to rate them on 5 aspects (good or bad, timid or aggressive, nice or mean, active or passive, and weak or strong).

A uniform was considered black if 50% of it was black.  In the NFL this included the Steelers, Saints, Raiders, Bengals and Bears (although the Chicago Bears uniform is technically a deep blue, a pre-experimental test showed that most perceived it to be black and in fact much of the football world refers to their uniforms as being black).  In the NHL this included Vanvouver, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh and Chicago.

What They Found

Despite the fact that jersey’s were shown out of context and without an athlete wearing them, the three scales relating to aggressiveness (good or bad, nice or mean, timid or aggressive) correlated to each other in a way that allowed for the researchers to combine them into a single score that demonstrated an overall aggressiveness level when combined (in other words, subjects who picked “good”, for example, tended to pick the same for the rest of the areas).  What they found was that teams with black uniforms were consistently rated as being more aggressive than their counterparts. Again, the interesting thing about this is that the subjects knew nothing of what these jersey’s represented, only what it looked like.

—-

Obviously a jersey that looks aggressive doesn’t automatically equate to a team that acts more aggressive.  So they sought to find out what the facts actually said of the teams that wore black uniforms.

What They Did: Study2–NFL and NHL Penalty Records

Frank and Gilovich went to the NFL and NHL and requested official penalty records for all teams from 1970 through 1985(NHL) and 1986(NFL).  Because in football, more aggressive penalties (such as roughing the passer, pass interference, or unnecessary roughness) equate to larger yardage losses, the aggressiveness of a given team was based on the amount of yards it was penalized in a given data set. If a team was assessed more penalty yards, it was viewed as playing more aggressively.  In hockey, a player who commits a foul is given a time penalty.  More aggressive penalties equate to more time. Therefore, a hockey team’s aggressiveness was based on its total penalty time in a given data set. If a team had more penalty time, it was viewed as being more aggressive.

What They Found

As they expected, the top 5 most penalized teams in the NFL over the duration of the data set were also the 5 teams that had black uniforms.  The same held true with the NHL teams in terms of penalty minutes with the exception of one team that came in 4th. Coincidentally, it was the New Jersey Devils.

Even more interesting, perhaps, are the findings of two of the NHL teams, Pittsburgh and Vancouver, who actually switched to black uniforms (from non-black uniforms) at one point in the data set. Further analysis revealed that the teams in fact had more penalty minutes post-black uniforms than pre-black uniforms, one of these changes (Pittsburgh) even happened in the same season, and therefore on the same team!

—

At this point we have found two things. First of all, people seem to think that individuals dressed in black are inherently more aggressive (study 1). Second, we discovered that in two professional sports, teams wearing black uniforms are in fact the most aggressive teams in their respective sports (study 2).  This leaves us with an obvious question though: If people view individuals who wear black as being more aggressive, isn’t it possible that the people calling penalties are simply more prone to calling them on teams in black?

What They Did: Study 3–Bias in Calling Penalties on Individuals in Black or White Uniforms.

To address the above question, Frank and Gilovich decided to directly investigate whether or not people would call penalties more on individuals wearing black than some other color. To be a experimentally sound investigation, the plays needed to be the exact same for those wearing the  black uniform and those not wearing black.  To overcome this dilemma, Frank and Gilovich videotaped two plays.

The two videos showed the exact same play with the exact same penalty likely occurring. The only difference in the two films was that for one, the defense wore black while the offense wore white and in the other, the defense wore white and the offense wore black.  Aside from this, the videos were designed to be as close to each other as possible.

Frank and Gilovich utilized a group of college students and a group of referees who would assess whether or not they felt a penalty had occurred. Every subject viewed the exact same plays. However, the referees and college students were each split into two groups (thus forming four groups).  The first group watched the videos in color, allowing them to plainly see that one team was wearing a black jersey.  The second group watched the video in black and white, and therefore they couldn’t tell if the darker jersey was black or another color like blue, red, or pink.

What They Found

The results showed that black jerseys tended to get penalties called on them more than white jerseys.    This held true for both plays, from both college students and professional referees, despite the fact that they were shot identically.  In other words, if you felt that the offense made a penalty in video 1, you should have felt the offense made a penalty in video two, regardless of the change in jersey color.  This is not what was found. Instead, more referees and college students felt that the black jersey teams made a foul than the white jersey teams.

Furthermore, the college students and professional referees who viewed the black and white films (the groups viewing the “non-black jerseys”) made no significant change in the way they called the play.  If they felt it was the offense in video 1, they felt it was the offense in video 2.

In other words, when the subjects knew that the team was wearing black, they felt they made more penalties, regardless of what side of the ball they were on. But when the color of the dark jersey was unclear, there was no bias in how they called the play.

–

This leaves us with one final question.  We obvioulsy perceive people wearing black as being more aggressive, even when they may not be (study 3).  So if we perceive others who wear black as more aggressive, what do we think of ourselves when we’re in black?  This question leads us to Frank and Gilovich’s final study.  For their final study, Frank and Gilovich sought to discover if people became more aggressive simply by wearing black uniforms.

What They Did: Study 4–Inducing Aggression by the Wearing of Black Uniforms

Subjects were put into groups of 3.  Each group was informed that they would be competing against each other in a series of 5 activities from a list of 12 possibilities.  Prior to being grouped each subject was asked individually what their 5 favorite activities were.  The list of activities ranged in aggressiveness.  Since some sports are inherently more aggressive than others, the choices they made indicated their level of aggressiveness.  For example, golf is a rather un-aggressive sport, while basketball is somewhat aggressive, and football is inherently aggressive. To determine actual ratings for aggressiveness of the activities, prior to the study a separate group of 30 individuals ranked the aggressiveness of 20 activities and the 12 most consistent results were averaged together to form a scale for the study.

Once the groups were together they were asked to then collaborate with each other on which sports they wanted to participate in.  The teams were either issued white uniforms, or black uniforms.  While making the decision on what activities they wanted to participate in, they did not see their opponents.

The study was looking for two things: 1). Would a team wearing black become more aggressive than they had been as individuals and 2). Would the teams wearing black chose more aggressive sports than the white uniformed teams.

There are therefore 4 groups to look at.

Individuals who would eventually be on a black uniform team
The black uniform teams
Individuals who would eventually be on a white uniform team
The white uniform teams

What they found

Not surprisingly, the results were conclusive.  As individuals, levels of aggression between groups was about the same.   However, once individuals were put on a team with a black uniform, the group then became significantly more aggressive in their choice of activities.   Not only were the group of black uniformed teams significantly more aggressive than the individuals as a whole but they were also more aggressive than their white teamed counterparts.  Furthermore, the white uniform teams aggression hardly changed at all from what they had chosen as individuals!

What does all of this mean?

The 4 experiments above outline some pretty interesting facts on human aggression.  The first alarming finding is that we make quick judgments  about people and what they are wearing.  We automatically assume that individuals wearing black are inherently more aggressive than individuals not wearing black.  But, as it turns out, we may be doing this for good reason because when individuals are wearing black seem to feel, and certainly seem to act, more aggressive.

The only advice I have for you; watch what you say to your buss boy!

Interesting stuff…

More Reading
Black Uniforms and Aggression (full article)

The history of social networking is probably quite a bit older than most people realize.  The internet has made it possible for humans to remain connected in ways that probably would have blown your father’s mind when he was a kid.  In fact, when I was young I use to ponder how neat it would be to go to my 10 year high school reunion.  By the time I got to high school however, instant messaging, email, myspace and (by the time i was in college) facebook made the prospects of attending any high school reunion seem unnecessary.  I already know what Tom has been doing for the last five years and I’m in constant contact with the friends I wish to remain in contact with.

In fact, I know more about people I don’t care about than I ever thought I would. Just the other day I announced to the world that I had intended on “unfriending” 75% of the 357 facebook “friends” I have because I didn’t know or care about their lives.  I haven’t gotten around to that, and I’m not sure I will.  Humans value the networks they are a part of.  Those 357 “friends” are sort of a resource, I realized. I may not care about Mary’s colonoscopy that she told the world about last night, but you never know when she’s going to post about a job opening at her company.

I mention a colonoscopy on facebook as a joke, only…it’s not a joke. I’ve seen that come across my “news feed”.  The amount of personal information shared on the likes of twitter, myspace, facebook, message boards, or whatever the social-networking-flavor-of-the-month is, is somewhat mind blowing.  It’s obvious that the information we share on these sites is put out there for a reason. It’s as if we are reaching out to the world, trying to quench that ever-present thirst for attention and sense of importance.

It seems likely that our desire to scream to the world about our every moment and–if you chose, our colonoscopies–is driven psychologically.  In fact, a new website called TweetPsych allows you to check the psychological breakdown of your tweets. It says of tweeting extraordinaire Shaquille O’Neil that, “Many of your Tweets reference various social behaviors.” As interesting and fun as TweetPsych is, research into the psychology behind social networking is in fact under way.

Who Are They

Researchers Young, Dutta, and Dommety of Stanford University’s Psychology Department

What They Did

Young, Dutta, and Dommety formed a simple research experiment that sought to identify a relationship between the things people put on their facebook profile about themselves in connection to their intentions, specifically whether or not they were using facebook as a tool to find a romantic relationship. The team utilized 150 facebook profiles representing a random mix of individuals.

What They Found

As they predicted, the research found a statically significant pattern between certain information listed on their profile in correlation to their relationship status.  Specifically, they found that individuals who listed their religion on their profile also tended to list the fact that they were single.

What This Means

The researchers recognize the simplicity of their study but also point out that, to their knowledge, this is the first study of its kind (often, entire branches of study stem from small, seemingly insignificant studies such as this). They conclude from this that it is likely that individuals are using social networking sites, like facebook, to paint a picture of themselves to potential partners.

The premise is that if an individual is not seeking a partner, there is no need to share with the world very individual and personal moral views.  Only does this matter if you are quietly informing people who may be interested in you. In a sense, facebook becomes a filter for the individual to weed out incompatible mates.

In Another Study

The truth is that for every 5 friends I have that are on facebook, I can probably think of one who isn’t.  The fact is that not everyone has a desire to share themselves to the world like others might.  Certainly, the internet did not create narcissism, but many would argue that social networking websites aid in it. Furthermore, it seems a safe conclusion that narcissistic individuals are more prone to utilizing social networking tools.  Recent research seems to confirm this conclusion.

Who Are They

Buffardi and Campbell of the University of Georgia’s Department of Psychology

What They Did

Buffardi and Campbell collected self-reports detecting narcissistic tendencies of users of social networking sites. The profiles of these individuals web pages were then coded to detect the levels of subjective and objective content. Lastly, strangers viewed these profile’s and rated them on three areas: agentic traits (the level at which an individual is a product of their society), communal traits, and narcissism.

What They Found

It turns out that an individuals level of activity on their social networking website is strongly correlated to their level of narcissism.  In short, people who like themselves tend to show more to the world about themselves.

Why Is Social Networking So Prevalent?

Narcissism is generally not a celebrated trait. Why then is social networking so widely accepted if it is so related to narcissistic tendencies?  Is it possible that the internet merely allows an all-to-easy outlet for these tendencies to surface from people who may otherwise not possess them? According to one study, this seems to be the case.

Some people are far more shy than others but to a certain extent we all possess a little of this–even the “kings of narcissism”.  Being shy is a defensive measure that allows an individual to protect themselves from ridicule, or worse.  The internet has allowed individuals an uncanny intimacy while maintaining  a near-infinite level of physical separation.  What effect might this have on shy individuals?

Who Are They
Orr, Sisic, Ross, Simmering, Arseneault, and Orr  of The University of Windsor’s Psychology Department

What They Did

Orr, Sisic, Ross, Simmering, Arseneault, and Orr  set out to study correlations of shyness to various aspects of social networking websites.

What They Found

By coding individuals level of shyness based on self reports and then analyzing their usage of facebook, Orr, Sisic, Ross, Simmering, Arseneault, and Orr, discovered that individuals who were more shy spent far more time on facebook.  What they also unexpectedly found, was that despite the fact that shyer individuals spent more time on facebook, they had a significantly lower amount of friends associated with their profiles.

What Does All This Mean?

Although social networking is reaching, arguably, the end of its 3rd generation, psychological research on the matter is still very young. However, recent studies seem to indicate what logic would surmise.  Social networking is, at its heart, fueled by long-existing psychological tendencies. The desire to be loved and be important to the world.  Certainly there is nothing abnormal about this. However, the ease at which information can be placed on the internet, the furious nature with which that information spreads, and the permanence of that information, is cause for concern.

Individuals who have problems finding friends or romantic partners by “normal means” may go to the internet and unleash the narcissism within themselves in an attempt to grab the worlds attention.  Unfortunately, it seems reasonable that shy individuals who can’t meet people by “normal means” (perhaps at a concert, diner, or bar, for example) do not have the filter of shyness that prevents them from sharing more than they may want to with the world.  The results may have the reverse effect that they are seeking.

In any case, it is interesting!

More Reading
Extrapolating psychological insights from Facebook profiles: a study of religion and relationship status (2009)
Narcissism and social networking Web sites (2008)
The influence of shyness on the use of Facebook in an undergraduate sample (2009)
Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited

The Real Life Example

Years ago I got hooked on The Sims (I realize this is sad).  The game was unique and there were a lot of goals to work towards which kept me interested.  You had to from your person into something unique, most of this (in my case) was related to the career I chose for my “sim”.  You wanted to advance certain skills because it was required for promotions at work which would lead to more money which would ultimately lead to more toys or additions to the house (if not a whole new house down the block).

"What happens to people's intrinsic motivation for an activity when they receive an extrinsic reward for doing the activity that they had previously been quite willing to do without the reward?"

The problem with all of this is that it took up a lot of time. There was only so much time I could dedicate to simulating my own life. Eventually I looked around on the internet and came up with some cheat codes that gave me unlimited funds. It was great at first. I bought everything there was to buy and made my house ridiculously massive. I felt like 50 cent on MTV Cribs.

As quickly as the game sparked my interest, after the cheat code, my interest vanished.

In a more real world example, as I grew older I became annoyed at messes in the house. For instance, a pile of dirty dishes were bothersome enough to me that I was actually motivated to wash them without anyone telling or asking me to. But over the years i noticed an interesting trend. If I was motivated to do the dishes myself but before I could start them someone of authority (a parent) told me to do the dishes, instantly my desire to do the dishes vanished.

What is going on in these examples? How can, in an instant, my interest in working (doing the dishes) or play working (improving my “sim’s” career) vanish? As it turns out, there is a likely explanation.

Who Are They?

Edward L. Deci of The University of Rochester in 1971. Professor of Psychology and Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of Rochester, and director of its human motivation program. He is well known in psychology for his theories of intrinsic motivation and basic psychological needs.

Some Brief Background Information

Deci has dedicated his career to studying why people do what they do (even writing a book of this title).  In brief, we all understand that we do things because we want to or because we have to.  These two notions are explained by intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation.  Intrinsic motivation are those things that we are internally driven to do.  Perhaps it is reading a romance novel before bed. We get nothing else from this except for the joy of reading the book.  When we wake up in the morning, most of us go to work.  Ideally it is to a job that we love but often it is a job that we tolerate.  For these types of situations, we are externally–or extrinsically–motivated.  That is to say, we go to work because we need money. Activities that are extriniscally motivated lead to a tangible “reward” and the reward thus becomes the motivation.  In this case, the motivating factor in going to work is money and the reward for working is money.

The important distinction to note is that we do some things because we have a desire within ourselves to do them and we do other things because there are external influences on us forcing us to do them.  I would like to note that money is not the only external influence that forces us to do things. In my real life example it was a parent telling me to do the dishes (the reward in this case: avoiding the wrath of an upset parent).

Sometimes external motivations can be a good thing.  For example, I like cycling and I like doing it on a nice bicycle. In order to enjoy cycling on a nice bicycle, I need to have the money to buy one.  In this sense, going to work for money allows me to perform activities that offer no external reward.

The question that Deci wanted to know was: “What happens to people’s intrinsic motivation for an activity when they receive an extrinsic reward for doing the activity that they had previously been quite willing to do without the reward?”

Deci designed an experiment using a novel puzzle game called Soma.  The puzzle allowed for you to create various shapes and figures by utilizing the 3-D blocks that made up the game.  The goal was either to create your own figures or try and figure out how to put the pieces together so that they form the image from the puzzle’s booklet.

Deci chose this game because it was incredibly entertaining.  If the puzzle was left out on his desk (as he did to test its entertainment value), people would consistently pick it up and play with it on their own accord. People were intrinsically motivated to play the puzzle–there were no rewards yet people wanted to play the game. For this reason, he decided it would be an excellent way to answer his question.

The results are rather interesting…

What They Did

Deci invited subjects into the lab  and were shown several configurations from the puzzle and asked to see if they could put the pieces together so to solve the puzzle.  One group of subjects was told that if they could accomplish the task, they would recieve $1 while the other group was offered no such reward.

Subjects were given about half an hour to work on the puzzle, at which point the experimenter would inform the subject that time was up and that the experimenter had to go enter data into the computer and get a questionnaire for the subject.  The experimenter was gone for exactly 8 minutes in each experiment.

During this time, the subject was free to continue working on the puzzle, reading some magazines that were strategically placed on the table, or do anything else that they could to pass the time. During the 8 minutes, the subject was observed.  The point of this part of the experiment was to determine whether or not the subject had an intrinsic motivation to work on the puzzle.  If the subject continued working on it, they demonstrated an intrinsic motivation to do so since there were no longer any extrinsic rewards for doing so.

What They Found

The results of the study indicated that regardless of a subjects success at completing the puzzle, those who were offered a reward were far less likely to play with the puzzle when they were left to their own.  It did not matter if an individual won the $1 or not, when they were offered the money they were significantly less likely to play with the puzzle when there was no reward.

In short, individuals who were offered no reward to finish the puzzle during the initial half an hour were far more likely to play with the puzzle when the experimenter left the room.

What To Make of This

It appears that humans are a stubborn group.  When there is something we like doing for the sake of doing it, we will do it. However, when we are controlled by external forces to do something, even if it is something we otherwise enjoy doing, our interest in doing it fades.  It may do us some good to watch where we offer extrinsic rewards to individuals for the things we want them to do.  Giving your 8th grader $20 for every A may get short term results, but it probably has a significantly negative impact on their desire to continue to get A’s later in life.

More Reading

The Effects of Contingent and Noncontingent Rewardsand Controls on Intrinsic Motivation (link to article)

Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation

3 Tips to Stop Blaming Money For All Your Problems

The Real Life Example

Last weekend i was at a small bar in the Apostle Islands in Wisconsin.  The bar was neat enough but one of the reasons we were there was for the live music.   The band consisted of three musicians. A bassist who was good enough, a percussionist who kept a beat creatively on some bongos and a mixture of other noise making oddities, and a singer, drummer, and guitarist.  The third guy was the main attraction, and he was good…really good.
He kept a drum beat with his two feet. He played guitar better than most, and he sang off a sheet of music (apparently his memory isn’t as sharp as his musical acuity).

I’ve played guitar for about 6 years now. I’ve never really dedicated my life to the craft but I’ve spent a fair amount of time trying to learn. To this day i still can’t sing while i play. I still can’t play Hendrix’s “Little Wing”.  I think I’m about on pace to be as good a musician as my father. That would be, decent, but never going to make much money off of it.

Why is it that some of us are better at music than others? Perhaps you know this family: The mother teaches piano, the daughter is the best singer in her high school chorus, and the son’s band won Battle Of The Bands last week.

It appears that this pattern isn’t random. A recent Study out of Finland has found evidence that musical talent is a genetically inherited trait.

Who Are They?

Liisa T. Ukkola, Päivi Onkamo, Pirre Raijas, Kai Karma and Irma Järvelä of the University of Helsinki in Helsinki, Finland.

What They Did

Ukkola and her team found 343 Finnish individuals from 19 families who had professional or amateur musicians in their families.  The individuals were tested on three separate standardized musical attitude tests.  The first tests the ability of an individual to recognize the structure of a musical piece. The second tests the ability for an individual to accurately recognize variations in pitch. The third tests an individuals ability to maintain consistent timing.

Together, these three tests comprise the basic aspects of a musical piece: structure, time and pitch.

A fourth test of creativity required the individual to compose or improvise a piece of music. Their piece was then judged by many people through a web-based application.

What They Found

Ukkola and her team found that there was statistically significant correlations within family and how the individuals scored.  More creative individuals tended to have more creative siblings.

Most importantly though, they found that music ability was directly related to a specific gene that is, “associated with social, emotional and behavioral traits, including pair bonding and parenting”.  This provides a neurological basis for musical talent.

What This Means

These findings may seem logical on the surface but the implications are somewhat significant.  It appears that many of the things that we are good at, in this case music, are directly related to our parents.  This likely explains why there are so many Andretti men in racing or why any number of successful father son combination’s in sports exist.

The physical attributes given to us by our family is nothing new.  Tall parents tend to breed tall children. Good looking parents tend to breed good looking children.  What makes this study interesting is that it seems feasible that many of the cognitive traits that we possess are also passed on from our family members biologically.

For years there has been a very intense debate about human intelligence and whether or not it is more the product of nature or nurture.  The general consensus has been that there is an inherent genetic potential that must be nurtured to come to fruition.  These findings do not exactly dismiss this notion, but they certainly confirm that many of our cognitive abilities are genetic in nature.

In short, there is a good chance that no matter how much you play guitar, you may never be as good as Hendrix.

More Reading

Musical Aptitude Is Associated with AVPR1A-Haplotypes (link to article)

Genetic Basis Of Musical Aptitude: Neurobiology of Musicality Related to Intrinsic Attachment Behavior (link to story)

Nurture by Nature: How to Raise Happy, Healthy, Responsible Children Through the Insights of Personality Type

The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of “Nature vs. Nurture”

The Real Life Situation

I met a guy the other day, nice guy.  I have no reason to believe that I know him except for the fact that I’m convinced that I’ve seen him before. I know this is an experience that you have encountered before. Despite the fact that we encounter thousands of people in our life–out of the billions on this planet–we seem to have the ability to remember a random face better than we remember the color of our first car.

Facial recognition is a skill dependent on a specific part of our brain

This is a scene that has been played out weekly on TV crime shows; a witness can’t remember what a person was wearing but can spot a crook in a lineup with ease. The truth is that this isn’t merely the work of clever writers. It turns out, humans do have a special face recognition system.

What is the system?

It turns out that there is a specific area of the brain dedicated specifically to recognizing faces. It is an area of the brain that shows heightened activity when a person looks at a face.  This activation does not occur when they look at anything else, like a mug or a car.  It is known as the fusiform face area or FFA. The FFA is located in the occipital lobe which is located at the rear of the brain. In most people, the FFA seems to be more prominent in the right hemisphere of the brain. The occipital lobe is where your brain processes what you see, so it makes sense that if there is an area specifically for processing faces that it is located here.

How do we know?

The FFA was first recognized in 1992 by Justine Sergent, Shinksuke Ohta and Brennan Macdonald of Montreal Neurological Institute.

What They Did

Sergent and his researches performed lesion studies on patients who had brain damage in the occipital and temporal lobes.  Some of the subjects, it was already known, had problems identifying faces while other patients did not have this problem. Subjects were presented with a grated images, arbitrary objects, and faces.  The goal for the subject was to identify what they were looking at as accurately as possible. Note: They were not asked to identify if what they were looking at was a face or an object, but rather identify what face and what object they were looking at.

While the subjects performed this task, a computer analyzed the levels of blood flow throughout the brain.  This is a form of brain imaging known as PET.  It works under the premise that when the brain works, it uses energy, and when the brain uses energy it needs to replace it. Energy is replaced through the blood. Thus, if a particular area of the brain is working harder, it is also getting more blood.

What they found

As  suggested earlier, what they found was that there is a specific area of the brain that “lights up” with activity when looking at a face in subjects who had no issues identifying faces.  In subjects with brain damage in this same area, they had a significantly more difficult time identifying the faces.

Pretty simple huh? People who can identify faces have activity in a specifica area of the brain, even people who may or may not have had brain damage in other areas of the brain. People who couldn’t identify faces though, also had brain damage in the same area of the brain that was highly active in those that could identify faces.

What to make of this?

For starters, these findings give indications that there are certain areas of the brain that are dedicated to specific tasks.  This helps explain why some people may be better artists than mathematicians.  Or why some excel at philosophy while others at English.  But this is idea is not limited to academics. In fact, a recent study indicates that there is a percentage of the population that excels specifically at recognizing faces.

From the article:

The new study suggests that skill in facial recognition might vary widely among humans. Previous research has identified as much as 2 percent of the population as having “face-blindness,” or prosopagnosia, a condition characterized by great difficulty in recognizing faces. For the first time, this new research shows that others excel in face recognition, indicating that the trait could be on a spectrum, with prosopagnosics on the low end and super-recognizers at the high end.

So next time you find yourself thinking that you recognize that new person in the office, you may very well have run into them before!

For More Reading

Wikipedia on the FFA

Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing. A positron emission tomography study (link to Sergent article)

Some People Really ‘Never Forget A Face:’ Understanding Extraordinary Face Recognition Ability (article on “super” face recognizers)

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking