2013-05-21T03:44:50-04:00 Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=adrian-furnham Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Adrian Furnham Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3305001 2013-05-20T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-20T18:40:33-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
But new data from a recent series of psychology experiments, investigating how people recognize missing children, are alarming. The results suggest that the very techniques police forces around the world are currently using, may actually be making it harder to recover missing children.

When a child has gone missing for an extended period, predicting accurately current appearance seems imperative. This is currently accomplished via forensic techniques known as 'age progression,' in which an old photograph of the missing person is used to predict how the child would look now, using computer modelling.

In the USA it is claimed that age progression has helped to recover one of out every seven children reported missing to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. In almost every case in which age progression is used, it's also claimed new leads are generated.

Linked to the release of the age-progressed image of Madeleine McCann, the media have widely reported that UK detectives reviewing the case of her 2007 disappearance have identified "a number of persons of interest".

Although increasingly widely used, and offering much hope to distressed relatives and searchers, whether the technique actually aids recognition, has not been properly scientifically tested.

But psychologists Steve Charman and Rolando Carol, from Florida International University, have recently claimed in a new study, that age-progressed images might even harm recognition.

This has serious and profound implications for the current search strategy for Madeleine McCann, and others, particularly given how much publicity current age-progressed images have received all around the world.

In this research, participants are presented with either an outdated image of a child, an age-progressed image of a child, or both images, and then are exposed to a series of faces of young adults, and then asked to indicate whether any of them are the 'target' or missing child.

Charman and Carol found in their study that the addition of an age-progressed image significantly harmed recognition of the child, and significantly inflated false recognition.

The current study entitled 'Age-progressed images may harm recognition of missing children by increasing the number of plausible targets' found that the age-progressed images were not just simply decreasing the likelihood of recognizing anyone, but they seemed to be systematically leading people away from recognizing the target (and toward mistakenly 'recognizing' non-targets).

Charman and Carol's recent finding is absolutely crucial to the field of missing children investigation, as this remains one of the only proper investigations of this popular technique, and it indicates age-progressed images may actually harm ability to recognize a target.

Charman and Carol acknowledge this result is intriguing and counterintuitive: If the age-progressed image was a poor representation of the target, participants who viewed both an outdated and an age-progressed image could have simply ignored it and relied solely upon the outdated image. But they clearly did not: In fact, they performed worse than participants who viewed only the outdated image.

The detrimental effect of age-progressed images is most probably partly a psychological effect: The addition of an age-progressed image somehow changes observers' decision-making strategies, and does so in a profoundly unhelpful way.

Charman and Carol conducted further studies to investigate the precise mechanism by which age-progressed images seem to impede recognition of missing children. Adding an age-progressed image to an outdated image appears to effectively create a second target face that people use when looking for the target. But the age-progressed image is not a very accurate representation of what the actual missing child currently looks like. Therefore, the age-progressed image increases the number of competing non-target faces that are seen as possibly being the target.

Because more faces are now competing with the target's face for recognition, this results in lower recognition of the missing child, and inflated mistaken recognition of other faces.

Charman and Carol point out there are two possible negative costs associated with a recognition error produced by age-progressed images in the real world: An observer may mistakenly 'recognize' a non-target (a false alarm) or may fail to recognize an actual target (a miss). But these errors are not equal: The failure to recognize a missing child is much more serious than mistakenly 'recognizing' someone.

Consequently, an age-progression procedure that increased hits would be beneficial, even if it led to an increase in false alarms. The problem is that these new results suggest that age-progressed images seem to actually reduce the likelihood of correctly recognizing a missing child.

In other words, age-progressed images were not simply useless; they were in fact worse than useless, leading people away from the actual 'missing child'.

If observers behaved logically, then adding an age-progressed image to an outdated image should lead them to narrow in on a target. But, in contrast, it actually increases the number of plausible targets.

Basically people do not respond logically to age-progressed images.

Their data, published in the 'Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition' suggests that instead of realizing that the target must be a plausible match to both the outdated image and the age-progressed image (or, if the age-progressed image is perceived to be completely worthless, to only the outdated image), people seem to respond to age-progressed images by reasoning that the target must match either the outdated image or the age-progressed image, but not necessarily both.

Age-progression techniques are problematic not only because the algorithms of those techniques by which the photo is generated could be flawed, but also because observers are using information derived from age-progressed images incorrectly.

Charman and Carol conclude their study by pointing out the anecdotal evidence from The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which claims: "In virtually every case the production and distribution of an updated [i.e., age-progressed] image stimulates new leads" may not in fact be the good news it is touted to be.

Any purported increase in leads may just tend to be false recognitions of non-targets. Given the recent much trumpeted 'good news' suggesting the possible generation of new leads over Madeleine McCann, there is an ominous possibility suggested by this new research, that the hunt is heading in the wrong direction.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3207649 2013-05-03T08:24:05-04:00 2013-05-03T09:38:27-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
The 'Advanced Detection Equipment' was based on a golf ball finder device and sold for up to £27,000 in some of the most dangerous parts of the world such as Iraq, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, China, Kenya, South Africa and Mexico.

But how was it possible that a former electrical salesman could bank up to £60m selling something found to be utterly useless - based on a novelty £13 golf ball finder - for over a decade to security forces, including Governments, police and the UN?

Incidentally it is not at all certain that the device would have reliably found golf balls.

Six thousand of these devices are reported to have been sold to the Iraqi government alone and officers involved in the case claim it is inconceivable that a device hasn't gone through checkpoints and exploded as a result of McCormick's scam.

The psychology of the case demonstrates all the classic emotional elements that are repeated in stings.

At the heart of these scams are confidence tricksters who have grasped how to manipulate to their ends.

Fiddles, including infamous Ponzi schemes, dupe many because of the deep psychological insecurity we all have of asking questions that might make us look publicly stupid.

McCormick may have blinded those he was selling the devices to with obviously bogus science. Those in charge of buying them appear to have fallen for the classic trap of not wanting to appear ignorant of the sophisticated physics involved in explosives, by asking straightforward questions.

If everyone else in a room nods their heads wisely on hearing an explanation for something we haven't understood at all, how many of us would have the courage to complain that an account makes no sense to us? We tend to assume the fault must lie in our own intelligence, and keep quiet, a human frailty which confidence tricksters exploit mercilessly.

McCormick's fake bomb detection kits were apparently labelled with stickers from the 'Essex Chamber of Commerce' and the 'International Association of Bomb Technicians', and this is another classic ploy - invoke authority from elsewhere, as backing you up.

Again, we tend to be overly impressed by endorsements from the influential (which is why advertisers like to use celebrities). In a high stakes situation it is always worth doing your own checks, that any scheme or device you are being flogged has been properly investigated, preferably by some independent, scientific and academically rigorous body.

Fraudsters exploit the natural laziness in all of us not to do the necessary checking for ourselves.

Another key psychological factor in this scam was the high stakes and high stress nature of the enterprise. When people are anxious they tend to desperately seek comfort, and McCormick was providing easy reassurance. His past life as a salesman was possibly crucial to this bit of the dodge.

We don't know what his competition was like from real devices, but we suspect he may have provided a cheaper and more accessible alternative, which cash strapped organisations might have been only too grateful for.

Once McCormick had managed to convince one Government agency to buy his useless equipment, we suspect another key psychological element to the scam kicked in which is our natural 'herd' instinct - a tendency to be overly impressed that others have made the same decision before us.

The powerful psychology of group conformity has been demonstrated over and over again in social psychology laboratories - if we find ourselves surrounded by others performing a behaviour, even if it doesn't make sense to us, we tend to fall into line and conform.

Interestingly once one person in a group breaks cover and rebels, it gets enormously easier for the rest to resist.

But given the urgent need to protect your colleagues from bombs, unless you had an alternative proposal that was as cheap and available as McCormick's, it could have appeared your objections were just putting colleagues at risk.

A key element of the psychology working in fraudsters favour is they pick alluring solutions to problems which don't often have easy alternatives. It would have been difficult we suspect for McCormick to have penetrated this market had it already been saturated with cheap and effective solutions.

But once the device failed to work out in the field, why it wasn't picked up as useless sooner?

You would have to be adept at handling explosives in order to properly independently test the device for yourself. Who would want to subject it to something personally difficult and dangerous?

Plus scam artists are usually good at explaining away apparent failures as down to other variables outside of the device itself. How many of us have been told that 'human error' explains why something we bought doesn't work properly?

Fraudsters are in ever escalating arms race to find new ways to dupe us. Given we can never keep abreast of the fast pace of technology (McCormick probably exploited this widespread resignation), so can we rely on our intuitions instead?

Psychologists Christopher Davis, Jennifer Thake and John Weekes from Carleton University, Canada, tested 11,370 recently incarcerated male offenders, and found those scoring higher on 'impression management' were more likely than those scoring low, to be convicted of the most morally reprehensible crimes (homicide, sexual assault, pedophilia, and incest), and are more likely to receive longer sentences.

The study recently published and entitled 'Impression managers: Nice guys or serious criminals?' and published in the 'Journal of Research in Personality' suggests you should perhaps beware the person trying hardest to appear most virtuous.

This is possibly a particularly apposite finding given the current spate of arrests and charges of those previously considered admirable and popular.

Also, always ask yourself what is the basic motivation underlying why someone is trying to sell or persuade.

McCormick's lavish lifestyle and apparent lack of interest in explosives science, we venture to suggest, could have been a warning clue. Instead it is probable his commercial success was interpreted as yet another endorsement of the effectiveness of his device.

A former employee of the company which produced the devices, reportedly recalled that when McCormick was challenged that the 'detectors' did not work, he responded "yes they do, they make lots of money."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3176687 2013-04-29T19:00:00-04:00 2013-04-29T13:02:35-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Some doubt whether the so called 'work ethic' ever really existed. Bosses who complained their employees lacked a work ethic, boasted suspiciously good golf handicaps.

Confusion over what a 'work ethic' actually is, may explain why Conservative MPs recently criticised the benefits system for encouraging unemployment. A work ethic is about the idea that you value the benefits of hard work, over and above whether you need to labour for purely financial reasons.

Theoretically then, those with a strong 'work ethic' will seek to toil, even if they don't need to, even if the benefits system will cushion them. In a community with a strong work ethic, the benefits system discouraging effort would, supposedly, be less of an issue.

Some big money lottery winners turn up for work the following morning after a huge win - indicating that they continue in their jobs for reasons of intrinsic benefit, other than needing to financially. Yet the very newspapers who come down hard on the unemployed for drawing benefits, are incredulous that anyone should continue to toil, after scooping a lottery mega win.

Given all this confusion over what an 'work ethic' is - where did the idea come from?

Max Weber (1864-1920) - a philosopher and founder of the German Democratic Party is credited with coining the concept of the 'Protestant Work Ethic'.

Protestants were successful, Weber suggested, because they believed that work was good, as it was for God's glory; that wealth was a sign of grace, and that it was our duty not to spend it on pleasures, but invest and become even more successful.

Driven by a strong work ethic, leisure was confused with idleness, which was literally sinful. It was Protestant piety, rationality and hard work for its own sake, that explained their competitive advantage.

Max Weber contended that Protestantism involved work and economic activity as God-given duty. Such worldly activity proved one's faith. This eventually evolved through history, into what Weber called the "spirit of capitalism" - which was the idea that working for the purpose of profit, is a moral good in itself.

Because Weber claimed Protestantism emphasised a link between religious ethics and rejoicing in economic prosperity, this accounted for the origin of modern industrial capitalism in Northwest Europe and North America.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and other senior religious members of in the UK might need to be reminded of the religious roots of our current economic system, given the current Christian vogue for criticising capitalism.

According to the theory of the 'Protestant Work Ethic', Protestants in particular, or Protestant societies, should value work more than other people, or other countries.

But does the work ethic still exist? Indeed, did it ever exist?

Economists André van Hoorn and Robbert Maseland from the University of Groningen in The Netherlands, have just published an enormous study analyzing a sample of almost 150,000 individuals from 82 societies, which appears to resolve this question.

Entitled 'Does a Protestant work ethic exist? Evidence from the well-being effect of unemployment', the study contended that if unemployment had a stronger negative effect on happiness, or well-being, for Protestants, or Protestant societies, this would be an indication that work matters more to Protestants.

To investigate whether unemployment hurts emotionally more in Protestant societies, the researchers first had to classify countries as either Protestant or not. They identified Finland, Great Britain, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States as societies in which Protestantism is currently the dominant religion. They classified a larger group of countries as having historically been Protestant and these included Australia, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland.

They indeed found that Protestants and Protestant societies appear to value work much more than the rest of the world. The research confirmed that the effect of living in a Protestant society dominates the individual effect of being Protestant. In other words, you don't have to be actually Protestant to be infected by the Protestant Work Ethic, if you live in a community dominated by this sentiment.

Whereas unemployment reduces well-being regardless of religious denomination, it has an additional negative effect for Protestants of about 40% of the size of the original impact of unemployment. At the individual level, unemployment hurts Protestants much more than it does non-Protestants. The study took into account the economic impact of unemployment and found, even allowing for this, unemployment causes Protestants, and those who live in Protestant countries, more distress.

Van Hoorn and Maseland conclude that their study, published in the 'Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization', finds that a Protestant 'work ethic' has been proven to exist.

They point out that a strong 'work ethic' has profound implications. People for whom the psychic or emotional costs of unemployment are lower, may make less effort to find or keep jobs. Previous research confirms that those experiencing greater falls in well-being due to unemployment, indeed engage in job search with more intensity. This supports the idea that lower psychic or emotional costs of unemployment, indicate a weaker work ethic.

A 'work ethic' is about the idea that working hard is intrinsically a good thing to do - this means that the unemployed will suffer more psychologically, if they hold a strong 'work ethic'. If paid work just isn't available, maybe volunteering should be more advocated. Such jobs are so psychologically valuable, that there is not always a lot of difference between paid and unpaid work, in terms of emotional benefits.

Van Hoorn and Maseland conclude that their results could also reflect a process of self-selection, in which people with a stronger work ethic have disproportionately converted to Protestantism, because it offered a religious justification for their ethical predispositions.

But there is also previous research which finds that smaller religious groups, like Jews and Zoroastrians, hold the principles of the work ethic even more strongly than practicing Protestants.

As a result, some have suggested it's time to give up the 'Protestant' in the 'Protestant Work Ethic' and simply call it the work ethic.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3083567 2013-04-15T19:00:00-04:00 2013-04-15T13:27:02-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Psychologists Peter Bull and Kate Mayer from the University of York analysed in unparalleled depth Thatcher's performances in the main TV interviews of the day.

Their analysis reveals that she deployed psychological techniques which appear to have given her a crucial edge.

In the study entitled, 'Interruptions in Political Interviews: A study of Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock', eight televised interviews were selected from four different interviewers, who each interviewed both Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock, and the video recordings were analysed.

No significant difference was found between Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock either in the extent to which they interrupt or were interrupted by the interviewers. Where the politicians did diverge, was in the degree to which Margaret Thatcher explicitly protests at being interrupted.

She objected to being interrupted much more than Kinnock did. The psychologists contend this gave the misleading impression that she was being excessively interrupted, although the objective evidence uncovered in the study clearly shows that this was not true.

The impression created by this psychological device, is that she was badly treated. This sense is compounded, the psychologists argue, by her tendency to personalise issues, to take questions and criticisms as accusations, and frequently to address the interviewers formally by title and surname, as if they need to be called to account for misdemeanours. Peter Bull and Kate Mayer conclude that these techniques pushed interviewers onto the defensive.

The television interviews analysed in the study, published in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology, were conducted by Sir Robin Day, Jonathan Dimbleby, David Dimbleby and David Frost, who each interviewed both politicians. The results showed no significant difference between Margaret Thatcher and Neil Kinnock in the frequency with which they interrupt or are interrupted.

The study found however, that Margaret Thatcher objects much more frequently to being interrupted, even on at least two occasions where there is no evidence that the interviewer was actually about to butt in! On one of these occasions the interviewer (Jonathan Dimbleby) openly protests that he was not about to interrupt.

The psychologists conclude it was easy to draw the impression that Margaret Thatcher was frequently interrupted, simply because she commented explicitly on interruptions, whereas in actual fact the objective evidence from this scientific study shows a striking similarity in both the frequency and pattern of interruptions between the two politicians.

Her tendency to comment explicitly on interruptions fits in with a number of other psychological aspects of her interview style. One feature was a tendency to reformulate questions and criticisms as accusations; another characteristic element was a tendency to personalise issues.

Both can be illustrated in the following excerpt from the interview with Jonathan Dimbleby:
Dimbleby: if the National Health Service is only safe in your hands wouldn't it be a good idea to demonstrate that, and a way of demonstrating that might be to use it some people would say
Thatcher: don't you think that you'd have got at me very much had I said, look I've got to be in on a certain day and I've got to be out on a certain day; you'd accuse me of queue jumping and you'd have been the first to have done so
Dimbleby: certainly not

Another feature of Margaret Thatcher's style was the way she frequently addressed the interviewer formally by title and surname.

On two occasions she actually used the incorrect title with Sir Robin Day: "Mr Day I think you're asking me I think you're I'm so sorry I made that mistake last time I won't do it again Sir Robin ... "; she then repeats the mistake on a subsequent occasion in the middle of one of her answers with "but Mr Sir Robin... " None of these tactics are employed by Neil Kinnock.

The device of naming the interviewer gave the impression that the interviewers needed to be called to account for their wrongdoing, misdemeanours which, as this analysis shows, they were not actually perpetrating.

Misnaming the interviewer does more than this; it can be construed as an overt put-down, for example in the case of Sir Robin Day. Given it was she who gave him his knighthood in 1981, calling him Mr Day twice is particularly intriguing psychologically. She really couldn't recollect authorising his knighthood?

With Jonathan Dimbleby, Margaret Thatcher used a different jab; she asked him, "Do you remember Harold Wilson? Well perhaps you don't you're too young". Of course Jonathan Dimbleby could remember Harold Wilson.

On one occasion Sir Robin Day protested, after trying unsuccessfully to interrupt Margaret Thatcher on several occasions, "We're not having a party political broadcast we're having an interview which must depend on me asking some questions occasionally".

The fact that interviewers should need to justify their roles in this way is a striking example of the way in which Margaret Thatcher's tactics successfully put the interviewer on the defensive.

Jonathan Dimbleby was actually reduced, on one occasion investigated in this study, to apologising for asking questions!

All these approaches can be interpreted as psychological strategies for wrong-footing the interviewer. Personalising issues and taking questions and criticisms as accusations created the feeling that the interviewers were behaving unfairly, whereas they were in fact simply doing their job: namely, asking questions and putting forward political arguments.

The psychologists conclude from their analysis that Margaret Thatcher revealed a striking mastery of the arts of political one-upmanship, continually wrong-footing interviewers and putting them on the defensive, such that they felt obliged to justify and even apologise for their role as interviewers.

Perhaps Margaret Thatcher's most lasting legacy is that she ushered in a new era of ultra wily political strategy on TV. Behavioural scientists have uncovered evidence suggesting she was an outstanding proponent of psychologically manipulative techniques.

Of course, her electoral success has to be down to many other factors, not just performance on TV.

But because these might have been the most covert of her lines of attack, slipping under the radar of the viewer and voter, they could also have been the most powerful.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3050485 2013-04-10T19:00:00-04:00 2013-04-10T15:30:34-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Professor Victor Cha from Georgetown University in the US was Director for Asian Affairs at the National Security Council - a key advisor to the White House over North Korea. He points out in a paper entitled 'North Korea's weapons of mass destruction: Badges, shields, or swords?' that developing weapons of mass destruction can only be properly understood as part of a wider military rationale.

He classifies such motivations into ''shields,'' ''swords'' and ''badges'' in his study published in the journal 'Political Science Quarterly'.

If the North Korea's nuclear capability is a shield, this reflects the regime's paranoia or chronic insecurity, and weapons are being developed as a deterrent.

If it is a sword, the nuclear capacity is for aggressive purposes and part of an offensive war stratagem, perhaps reuniting the Korean peninsula.

If it is a badge, the nuclear program becomes a symbol of international prestige affording North Korea heavier diplomatic punch in the international arena, than what it otherwise would enjoy, particularly given it's perilous economic state.

Victor Cha argues the essential psychology of small states' nuclear proliferation is completely different from the 'second strike' deterrence that pertained between the US and the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Instead North Korea appears to be gambling on 'existential deterrence'; creating just enough uncertainty in the minds of a superior adversary that any conflict might escalate into nuclear war, and the smaller state may not be completely neutralised by a first strike. Faced with this ambiguity a more powerful adversary is going to be more cautious and prudent than they would otherwise be given overwhelming military superiority.

The recent postponing by the USA of a missile test appears to confirm Professor Cha's psychological analysis.

Professor Cha contends that if a weapons program is developed under a cloak of secrecy then 'existential deterrence' is most likely because opacity generates worse case assessments that err on the side of caution, so increasing first strike uncertainty. Small states like North Korea could be banking on displaying just enough activity in a nuclear program to make the rest of the world believe they possess the ultimate trump card. Whether they actually have viable weapons becomes irrelevant, if they just keep everyone else guessing.

Dr Benjamin Habib, a lecturer at La Trobe University in Australia specialising in North Korean Nuclear Proliferation, argues segments of the North Korean population are now excluded from access to food and services in order to prioritise the provision of the military. Therefore he contends North Korean society has become synonymous with its nuclear proliferation project. Any concession by them is likely to be short-term and part of a long term strategy to accomplish their aim of a viable nuclear arsenal.

Dr Habib's study of North Korea and the psychology of its ruling elite has lead him to conclude the nuclear program is in fact key to the perpetuation of the regime. Such weapons have been a long-term project spanning several decades. Negotiations have followed a cyclical pattern - the North provokes crises to extract concessions and gain leverage.

Dr Habib contends in a recent study entitled 'Rogue proliferator? North Korea's nuclear fuel cycle and its relationship to regime perpetuation', that the massive sunk costs of previous investment in the nuclear program, creates forward momentum which makes putting the brakes on now practically impossible.

Observers often refer to nuclear dismantlement as if it were something the North could do rapidly and easily. Habib argues that in a very real way, the physical plant of the program, the nuclear infrastructure, is embedded in the national economy. In fact, North Korea's nuclear fuel cycle, with it's associated bureaucracy, are integral to economic survival, political stability and regime validation.

Habib believes to understand the psychology of the leadership you need to grasp just how much of the whole country has become diverted down the route of becoming a nuclear power.

North Korea is endowed with extensive uranium ore deposits, which constitute the prerequisite feedstock of the nuclear fuel cycle. One ton of North Korean uranium ore contains 1 kg of uranium, which means that 50,000 tons of uranium ore had to be mined and milled to extract the 50 tons of uranium required for the initial fuel load for the reactor at Yongbyon.

Calculations of the size of North Korea's plutonium stockpile are highly uncertain but the latest estimates are they have enough fissile material for between 12 to 23 nuclear weapons.

The precise amount of plutonium required to fashion a nuclear bomb depends on several variables: the desired yield, the design of the weapon, and the sophistication of the technology.

But even if you can make a bomb reliably, suitable delivery systems must exist to carry it to targets. North Korea possesses Scud-C, Nodong and Taepo-dong ballistic missile systems capable of delivering warheads to South Korea and Japan.

On 5 April 2009 the regime launched a multistage rocket for the ostensible purpose of placing a satellite into orbit, but which foreign observers believed to be a clandestine long range rocket test. Though ultimately described as a failure, the final stage of the rocket did manage to fly 2700 km before splashing down in the Pacific Ocean, a more successful result than previous tests.

On 25 May 2009, following what was widely considered a failed nuclear test in 2006, a blast was measured from North Korea, much more powerful than the 2006 test, registering a magnitude of 4.52 on the Richter scale, with an estimated yield of 20 kilotons, putting it on par with the American atomic bomb that levelled Nagasaki in 1945. A kiloton is an explosive force equivalent to 1,000 metric tons of TNT.

The successful second test demonstrated clearly North Korea was now a nuclear power.

The momentum established by such progress from the unsuccessful 2006 test - whose yield was perhaps even as low as 0.2 kilotons - Habib believes means that a negotiated settlement as a way of securing the dismantlement of North Korea's nuclear program is now doomed.

Instead he argues for a strategy for constructive management of Northeast Asian security in light of North Korea's ascension as a nuclear power.

Habib points out the nuclear capability gives the regime the bargaining leverage it desperately needs to plug holes in its economy, with injections of aid from the international community. North Korea derived approximately one-third of its revenues from international aid back in 2010.

The problem with smaller states nuclear gamble is that proliferation might produce uncertainty and caution, but it could also provoke a pre-emptive first strike depending, on assessments over how advanced the nuclear programme has become.

But Habib contends that a key ace in North Korea's hand is that Seoul is hostage to North Korean rockets and artillery.

The reality behind the rhetoric, Habib argues, is that Western leaders have quietly accepted a nuclear North Korea.

They're keeping this hushed up because just don't want other countries contemplating joining the top table of nuclear nations, to draw unhelpful conclusions from North Korea's successful playing of this poker game.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2951974 2013-03-25T19:40:36-04:00 2013-03-26T10:07:13-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
The history of our own planet is that civilizations boasting advanced technologies have subjugated and exploited the vulnerable. Should that guide our thinking on how aliens might treat us?

The paper, published in an academic journal, 'Acta Astronautica' (sponsored by the International Academy of Astronautics and devoted to the scientific study of space) advocates that we should be getting inside the minds of extra-terrestrial intelligences, before we naively continue to send probes, and high powered communications, out into space, attempting to make contact with whoever, or whatever, might be out there.

The possibility that extra-terrestrial intelligences (ETIs) could be hostile means we should be lying low, and not signalling our presence to the universe.

One theory as to why when we currently peer into deep space, we can't see any evidence of other civilisations, although statistically speaking just our own galaxy should be teeming with life, is that everyone else out there is camouflaged, and hiding.

All except us in the universe have already calculated the inherent risks of making contact with strangers.

The paper entitled, 'MAD with aliens? Interstellar deterrence and its implications' contends that the risks of an extra-terrestrial attack are not properly debated because of an assumption that we cannot analyse the decision making of an alien civilization.

Janne Korhonen argues, however, we can draw some inferences from the history of deterrence and war on our planet. The acronym 'MAD' in the title of the paper comes from 'Mutually Assured Destruction' - which was the poker game that appeared to keep the Soviet Union and the USA from blowing the world to bits during the Cold War.

In particular, Korhonen advocates special caution for proposed interstellar missions, as star-faring capability itself might be seen as a threat. Paranoid ETIs might also consider the possibility that our messages are a deception designed to lure out hostile civilizations, and pre-emptively destroy them. This would explain why no one has been answering us back, as we try ever harder to make contact.

Even if a superior civilization found our technology appeared puny compared to theirs - it's possible they might be wary - considering this a classic military deception strategy. We could be appearing weak and vulnerable to draw out the enemy, before striking with overwhelming previously concealed firepower.

Novels and movies have portrayed aliens as compassionate and helpful (eg ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind), but extra-terrestrials don't have to be particularly paranoid or xenophobic, according to Korhonen, for it to be simply logical to preventively destroy other species, before they can pose a threat.

Korhonen analyses the risks of the most disquieting scenario: that an ETI would, upon detecting advanced civilization on Earth, launch an unprovoked preventive attack, aimed at destroying humanity.

The paper points out an expansionist civilization which is busy 'strip-mining' solar systems for resources, is unlikely to be interested in our fragile globe, as the resources available across galaxies are so vast.

However, a species of extra-terrestrial confined to just a few planets would likely feel more vulnerable.

Korhonen assesses that just ordinary interaction between two inter-galactic adversaries could inadvertently destroy or seriously damage one of them, through transmission of diseases, invasive species, computer viruses or even, merely undesirable information (there is no God).

Also any spacecraft capable of interstellar voyages in reasonable time becomes an inadvertent weapon of mass destruction through sheer momentum. Relatively simple interstellar probes -within our capability soon - would be devastating warheads.

To illustrate this argument Korhonen calculates the kinetic energy for each 1000 kg of spacecraft mass at different velocities, demonstrating how easily one simple probe could exceed the entire global nuclear stockpile. So even primitive interstellar probes, travelling at an appreciable fraction of light speed, could be extremely dangerous to planet-bound civilizations.

Given human history's tendency for 'cock up' as a cause of killing, it is easy to imagine a scenario where a human 'fly-by' probe to a supposedly uninhabited system accidentally damages a civilization that had chosen to remain quiet, perhaps due to paranoid fear of detection. Said civilization might strike back in order to stop further ''attacks.''

But Korhonen contends it's the possibility of retaliation which renders preventive attacks a flawed strategy. Interstellar civilizations would be disinclined to knowingly initiate hostilities using this logic.

Yet this reasoning appears to have escaped those here on earth who are currently planning a pre-emptive strike against Iran, and who launched these against Iraq and Afghanistan. The psychology of war-mongering governments is to persuade the public to sanction pre-emptive strikes. This is achieved by avoiding considering post attack consequences in the propaganda for war.

Korhonen acknowledges his analysis does not cover irrational attacks - including those motivated by ideology or xenophobia - but why might alien civilizations not be prone to the same irrationalities as we have been?

Korhonenn relies on previous calculations from astronomers and planetary scientists that there may be between a hundred thousand to one million other civilisations in our galaxy alone. In which case the key question is not why have we not detected other civilizations out in space, but how come we haven't yet been eradicated?

He believes the aliens have made a critical calculation - which is around fear of retaliation. This is the essential deterrence and also explains why no state has yet initiated a preventive nuclear attack against another on our own planet. Deterrence is reliable if it can inflict ''unacceptable'' damage to the attacker.

Apparently in the poker game of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' between the Soviet Union and the USA, it was the capability to destroy any ten cities in retaliation after a surprise attack, which was seen as reliable and adequate nuclear deterrent.

However, the miscalculation of those who advocate pre-emptive strikes is that survivors and witnesses, in the longer term, take revenge and eventually strike back. This is why we must discourage our leaders from the irrationality of pre-emptive strikes. We are still alive today, and have not been wiped out by a bolt from the sky, because intelligence in outer space has already calculated the foolhardy nature of the pre-emptive strike.

If Korhonen is right, we do have something to learn from the silence of the aliens.

If you are interested in taking part in a brief on-line psychology experiment in collaboration with the Edinburgh International Science Festival, exploring how Hollywood handles science with the implications for us - plus attend a talk on the subject - visit this link here www.sciencefestival.co.uk/whats-on/categories/talk/creating-a-monster-geeks-on-film]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2882284 2013-03-15T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-15T05:12:01-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Previous research on ads placed in Lonely hearts columns finds that men tend to offer a Good Sense of Humour (GSOH), while women are searching for it.

But why should science reveal wit to be so particularly attractive, above so many other characteristics?

Also why do psychologists disclose it makes a massive difference in the dynamics of flirting as to who is being funny, and who is doing the laughing - men or women?

Research has uncovered that laughing yourself, or trying to make someone express amusement, is a strong indicator of romantic interest. In other words, it is possible to gauge the degree to which someone desires us, by how much laughter is part of the banter.

Evolutionary theory argues what we find desirable is not accidental or mysterious - there must be some longer term pragmatic survival value to us, or our DNA. The theory is at an unconscious level we are drawn to characteristics that will help us pass on our genes.

So this explains why women prefer slightly older and taller men to themselves - in our ancestral environments experience and height were an advantage in a fight, and why men tend to prefer younger women - they are more likely to be fertile and bear children.

But there's nothing immediately amusing about the grim business of survival, is there?

Studies also suggest that being physically attractive means you are found more funny. In other words, you could think you're being attracted to someone because they make you laugh, when in fact - it's the fact you fancy them - which is getting you to giggle.

Knowing what is really happening in terms of why flirting and funny are so intimately connected, could improve 'mate selection'. After all, one reason agents which reduce inhibition such as alcohol or drugs are so popular as aids to flirting, is everyone seems to become more hilarious, with this assistance.

The latest research on attraction also confirms that men prefer women to be 'humour appreciators' rather than 'humour producers', while women favour men to be the one's producing the humour in the relationship.

University of New Mexico psychologist Professor Geoffrey Miller, in his book The Mating Mind, argues that humour is at the heart of flirtation because it's a key way women decide on the size of their favourite male organ - his brain.

Miller argues that the various mental challenges associated with being funny, for example it requires abstract thinking, appreciation of the audience's mind, highly advanced language skills and being creative, all means a good sense of humour reveals a really quick brain. Because it's tough to be funny and therefore rare, this becomes a demonstration of high genetic quality.

But many (possibly dimmer) men fail to grasp what women are really appreciating about humour - as they have an intuition that being funny is a useful 'pulling' strategy, so they scatter gun crude or sexual memorised jokes in their chat-up lines. These quips do not display genetic quality as ably as spontaneous wit, as psychologists Christopher Bale, Rory Morrison and Peter Caryl from the University of Edinburgh demonstrated in their study entitled, Chat-up lines as male sexual displays.

Their investigation, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, argued it's vital to distinguish wit (spontaneous jokes that fit the context exactly, are genuinely funny, and require intelligence) from mere pre-planned jokes and one-liners which generally are ineffective on most women, and, do not demonstrate intelligence.

Mary Louise Cowan and Anthony Little from the University of Stirling aimed to resolve some of these conundrums in the links between funniness and flirting. They presented photographs, audio-only excerpts and video clips of participants spontaneously producing humour, and had these rated for funniness and attractiveness as both a long and short-term partner.

The study, entitled The effects of relationship context and modality on ratings of funniness found that if we are physically attracted to someone, we tend to find them funny, and therefore humour appears primarily to be about signalling romantic interest. If we already find someone attractive, and then we discover they are funny, our interest in them is cranked up.

The pattern of results, published in the journal 'Personality and Individual Differences' are that while both men and women are looking for comedy, there were some intriguing differences depending on whether you were in the market for a long term or short term relationship. Men liked women to be funny at the beginning of a relationship, because it indicated flirtatiousness and receptivity, perhaps particularly to a short term fling. While women preferred men to be humorous generally, the appeal of humour dropped off much more dramatically when they were considering the man for a longer term relationship.

If for both sexes being funny is strongly associated with being flirty, men's flirtatiousness seems to more seriously reduce their appeal to women in the market for a longer term relationship. This might be because it creates an impression of not being serious, or willing to invest and commit in a mate.

So for both genders, being witty and appreciating humour is profoundly important in short term flings, but becomes less appealing as a longer term more serious connection is being considered, in particular, as women contemplate a droll man.

These and previous findings on humour and the heart suggest the optimal flirting strategy for a man would be to use humour at the early stages of a relationship to help 'hook' the woman, but to become more serious and less jokey as the relationship developed.

For women the optimal strategy would appear to be to find the man they are with hilarious, particularly at the beginning. For women they may want to analyse the nature of what is making them laugh - is it the man's quickness and ability to respond humorously to the situation they are in - or is he relying on pre-learned jokes and chat-up lines from the internet?

Bale, Morrison and Caryl in their study of chat-up lines wondered why men persisted in using so many 'chat-up' approaches that were rated as unpopular with so many women - such as boorish jokes, empty compliments, and sexually loaded remarks. They wondered if these strategies were never intended to impress a woman, but merely winnow out which possible 'targets' were in the mood for being the least fussy.

Psychologist Mary Louise Cowan, one of the authors of the most up to date research, speculates there would be little difference between heterosexual and homosexual preferences for humour in a romantic partner; these are adaptive genetic impulses we are predisposed to respond to, which would be quite robust, regardless of sexual orientation. Combined with the pleasure of having a humorous partner, and the fact that both sexes use humour to indicate interest when flirting, she suggests the findings from her experiments (conducted with Anthony Little), are likely to apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

So, both men and women, gay and straight, may want to consider the possibility that, particularly at the beginning of a relationship, it's because they are in the thrall of their dates due to physical attraction, is why everything they say now seems amusing. Once that initial desire begins to abate, how grating are those one-liners going to get?

It would, therefore, appear that in terms of being funny in flirtation, timing is everything.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2860742 2013-03-12T19:00:00-04:00 2013-05-12T05:12:01-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
But Huhne's driving licence was already so over-burdened with points, more would have tipped him over the limit, with possible shattering consequences for his political career. Was this the first sign on the road map, of how this twisting journey would end?

We drive as we live. Fast and reckless can mean skidding and crashing.

Psychologist George Schreer from Manhattanville College in the USA conducted a study where inflated views of the self, or narcissism, predicted aggressive driving.

Entitled 'Narcissism and Aggression: Is Inflated Self Esteem Related to Aggressive Driving?' and published in the North American Journal of Psychology, the research found men scoring high on entitlement ("I insist upon getting the respect that is due to me") reported more aggressive driving, while women high on exhibitionism ("I like to be the center of attention") reported more belligerence, behind a steering wheel.

Under a veneer of high self-worth many narcissists hide underlying feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. These are being masked and compensated for, by the climb up the greasy pole of fame and success.

Narcissists tend to be inordinately sensitive to anything which could be interpreted as a challenge, or threat, to their fundamental need to feel superior. So they react with hostility. Aggression is linked to narcissism because of this daily struggle to maintain a grandiose, but fragile self-image.

Next in the Pryce-Huhne saga was an adulterous affair conducted by Chris Huhne, with someone he appears to have met while pursuing his career.

Masanori Kuroki, from Occidental College, Los Angeles, has just published a study finding the chances of being sexually unfaithful to a partner increases with the proportion of opposite-sex co-workers at your workplace. This effect appears to apply to men, but not for women.

The study entitled 'Opposite-sex co-workers and marital infidelity' and published in the journal Economics Letters, found that every increase in roughly one third of the fraction of female co-workers at your place of work, increases the chances of an extramarital affair by almost 5% for men.

Workplace contact with the opposite sex changes perceptions of alternatives, possibly creating dissatisfaction, more likely to end in divorce. Given how common adultery is (Kuroki found in the sample from the USA 24% of male respondents and 20% of female admitted they had committed infidelity), it makes sense to be more aware, if you want to preserve your relationship, of whom your partner is meeting at work. After all many of us spend more time at the office than (awake) at home.

The reaction to the infidelity in the Huhne-Pryce saga appears to have generated hostility - psychologists would predict that jealousy played a key role.

Brad Sagarin and colleagues from Northern Illinois University and the Rochester Institute of Technology, have confirmed by pooling data from a large number of different studies, that men and women both react with jealousy, but differ in response, depending on whether they are dealing with a partner's sexual, or emotional infidelity.

Jealousy in response to infidelity appears to be a key emotion according to the study entitled 'Sex differences in jealousy: a meta-analytic examination' and published in the journal Evolution and Human Behaviour.

Jealousy is such a powerful drive, it may even have evolved to keep our partners in check.

Men show more distress when imagining their partners having sex with another, whereas women reveal more upset over their partners forming an emotional attachment elsewhere.

Evolutionary psychology explains this gender difference by arguing we are driven by the need to maximally pass on our genes to future generations. Male and female strategy in mating behaviour will differ because women will invest a lot in their own children, seeking similar parental investment from a male partner. But male strategy, in our ancestral environment, which our brains evolved to cope with, might be to get many different women pregnant.

So, according to evolutionary psychology, it is particularly threatening to the survival of a man's DNA if his partner gets pregnant by someone else, whereas it is especially ominous to passing on a woman's genes, if her partner starts diverting his resources away from her and her children, towards another woman.

Psychology might be able to explain what happened in the headlines, in terms of the toxic mix of narcissism, infidelity and jealousy, but can it predict the future of a relationship from years back? Was this Shakespearian tragedy set in motion long before the speeding points accumulated to the tipping point?

In a study entitled 'You can't be happier than your wife. Happiness gaps and divorce', Cahit Guvena, Claudia Senikb and Holger Stichnoth found a happiness gap between spouses in any given year increases the chances that a separation will occur in the following year, or further into the future.

The study, published in the 'Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization' argues the crucial issue is not how happy overall a couple is - both could be much happier than the general population, but if one starts to be significantly happier or unhappier than the other, 'a happiness gap', then the relationship is in more serious trouble.

Even a happiness gap in the first year of marriage increases the risk of a future separation. The widening of the happiness gap is also associated with a higher risk of divorce, the authors who are based at Deakin University, Australia and the Paris School of Economics, found.

But the research, based on three large surveys from Britain, German and Australia discovered the effect of happiness gaps is asymmetric: couples are more likely to break-up when the woman is the less content partner. Relative deprivation appears to be the key - in other words finding yourself much less pleased than your partner - particularly if you are a woman.

Comparisons of happiness between spouses appears crucial, and partners are good at estimating how cheerful each other is. If you're both equally miserable you are, according to this research, not going to end the relationship. Also, if a woman is much happier than her male partner, she is not likely to initiate divorce.

But a woman finding she is much less happy than her husband, appears most lethal to the future of a marriage, according to these surveys. This could be because women shoulder more responsibility for making relationships work.

So, beware happiness gaps developing in your relationship, if you want to avoid breakdown or hostile reactions after separation.

Psychology contends our personality predicts our destiny much more than we might appreciate. We often believe we are, instead, the victim of circumstance.

But we don't have to be trapped by our characters, strong drives and emotions, as the actors in this tragedy appear to have been. Becoming more self-aware, uncomfortable though that might be, can help liberate us from the prison of personality.

Yet surrounding ourselves with those who only tell us what we want to hear, just reinforces our dark side. The famous, successful and rich are perhaps, paradoxically, most vulnerable to bad advice from confidants, because their intimates will more often have their own agenda.

So, one final psychological lesson following this tragic tale - when it comes to seeking counsel - never confide in a journalist.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2836006 2013-03-08T19:00:00-05:00 2013-05-08T05:12:01-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Then comes the rumination on the wrong we've suffered, followed, inexorably, by revenge fantasies. Our lives become diverted because the addictive power of payback renders it impossible to focus on anything else.

But dwelling on betrayal, in fact, produces no healing, only feeds the bitterness, in effect eliminating any chance of happiness.

So why do we do it?

The media has been quick to condemn Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce for various aspects of their self-destructive acts of retaliation, but the more profound question is, why two such intelligent and successful people could get so completely sucked into the vengeance trap?

What they did is, in fact, incredibly common, and daily witnessed by psychologists and psychiatrists as a recurrent cause of distress. It just normally doesn't get so much attention, and so remains one of the darkest, hidden parts of the human psyche.

In the rush to judge and denounce Huhne and Pryce, it may be worth pausing to consider how prone we all are to revenge fantasies, and how self-destructive these can become in our lives.

Psychiatrists Professor Mardi Horowitz and Assistant Professor Susan Meffert from the University of California, San Francisco, have helpfully illuminated our grim desire for revenge in their chapter entitled 'Revenge Fantasies' in the Encyclopaedia of Stress (Elsevier, Second Edition).

They argue that seething with anger has an energizing function, which can be therapeutic when we're feeling beaten up by the world, or our adversary. Nursing targeted anger encourages us to feel strong, while fear creates a sense of weakness and vulnerability.

Self-righteous indignation is popular across the media in general, and indeed many programmes, like talk radio shows, as Horowitz and Meffert point out, even seek to stoke it. These psychiatrists advocate caution in this regard, because revenge fantasies are easy to plant, yet hard to uproot. It was probably not helpful that in the case of Pryce and Huhne, some of those they may have turned to for counsel at a time of distress, were scheming to appear sympathetic, yet encouraging of revenge, for their own murky motives.

Sometimes it seems as if whole professions are founded on exploiting our weakness for revenge.

There is something possibly hypocritical about the press condemnation of Pryce and Huhne's spiral of vengeance inflicted upon each other, when it was sometimes journalists who were covertly inspiring it, as emerged during the trial.

Horowitz and Meffert suggest that after a betrayal, bitterness and resentment leads to self-righteous indignation, which then becomes difficult to shake off, because it feels so much like energy or fuel for the soul. Burning anger makes us feel hard and solid, instead of puny, hollow or apathetic.

Breaking free of the revenge trap is possible; argue Hororwitz and Meffert, but psychological treatment, in their view, starts with the insight that we can be strong, without self-righteous rage. Next we need to analyse our predicament, rather than replaying an endless loop of the revenge tape in our heads, which in reality goes nowhere.

After experiencing a traumatic betrayal, Horowitz and Meffert suggest asking yourself whether the perpetrator is an enemy, or perhaps, an unreliable narcissist. Their suggestion appears prophetic, when considering the case currently hitting the headlines.

Horowitz and Meffert believe escape from the revenge trap is only possible by avoiding demonizing the target of moral indignation (but is this what the press are up to today?). They are not suggesting passive resignation to enduring wrongs. Turning the other cheek, they acknowledge, may only invite more slaps in the face.

Giving up self-righteousness, Horowitz and Meffert believe, is not the same thing as giving up moral indignation. Ethical outrage is a healthy response to seeing people break rules, when they could follow them. Moral indignation is a key motivating force in the world for good, but is easy to confuse with the desire for revenge. Someone who had been sexually assaulted may deploy moral indignation, campaigning to counteract the exposure of other children to abuse or neglect.

This kind of exasperation, in the view of Horowitz and Meffert, is effective and adaptive, whereas chronic bitterness with revenge fantasies, is ultimately unproductive.

We know from other psychological work in the area of revenge that the idea of "accepting and moving on" is easier for those who assent we don't live in a just world. Pryce and Huhne, by dint of their professions, were both involved in over-arching understandings of society. We may want to consider how our leaders and politicians inadvertently reveal their real attitude to humanity, from their private behaviour.

Those involved in politics and climbing the greasy pole are often enamoured with controlling others, while seeking to be free of control from above. One of the best ways, in our experience, to help those ensnared by the desire for retaliation, is to explain unless they forgive others (rather than seek revenge) their adversaries will continue to have power over them

Horowitz and Meffert conclude that the most powerful antidote to revenge fantasy is a new adage: When you feel bitter, do good. Put another way: when you feel bitter, seek the good. They contend this is a variant to popular maxims such as: perform random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

The psychiatrists' reasoning is that usually we want to be virtuous when we feel wonderful, as when we are in love. Their treatment of revenge rumination is to do good, particularly when we are more despondent.

They contend bringing goodness into the world when we feel humiliated, affronted, fuming, and unsatisfied, most effectively counteracts self-righteous rage and revenge impulses.

'When you feel bitter, do good' works because it counteracts two customary but malignant reactions to being insulted. One response is to cave in and feel feeble, punctured, and degraded; the other is the opposite, a result of role reversal, to adopt a tough menacing role, lashing out at others who are weaker.

So the next time you are betrayed and start ruminating and plotting revenge, remember the advice from two world specialists on the subject - when you feel bitter, do good.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2757259 2013-02-25T03:57:01-05:00 2013-04-26T05:12:01-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/ Silver Linings Playbook, but if her and Daniel Day Lewis's awards are truly the same, then the best actor and best actress should contribute equally to assessments of what count as great movies.

Daniel Day Lewis was born in 1957, Jennifer Lawrence in 1990 - does this discrepancy in age reveal entirely different roles for men and women on film, in stories and in our minds?

Research by a distinguished professor of psychology at the University of California finds the best actor and best actress are not competing on level playing fields in Hollywood.

Dean Keith Simonton has conducted scientific research into the Oscar ceremony results, going back decades, uncovering an intriguing bias against female actresses.

This year's ceremony saw Argo win best picture and, as predicted by Simonton's research, while this film also had a best supporting actor nomination, it boasted no best actress or best supporting actress nomination. As Simonton predicted, women don't seem to feature as much in what are considered to be the better stories.

He points out in his paper entitled 'The "Best Actress" Paradox: Outstanding Feature Films Versus Exceptional Women's Performances', that female movie actresses are already known to have shorter careers and earn less than male actors. He reports in one representative recent year the 12 stars with the top gross salaries - those who earn about $20million per film and average about 12% of the gross - included only one woman, Julia Roberts. Even she earned half as much as the two top men, Tom Cruise and Bruce Willis.

Simonton argues unbalanced treatment of men and women continues with respect to the best acting Oscars bestowed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Women have a much narrower age interval in which they are likely to win an Oscar. Only about one-quarter of the female recipients are older than 39, about two-thirds of the male winners are 40 or older.

Simonton wondered whether actors and actresses, although they may stride up onto the stage to pick up their gongs in an apparently equivalent manner, are in completely different kinds of competition.

He argues that outstanding acting by women is largely confined to lesser films, whereas comparable performances by men, are to be found in the most successful movies.

In a previous study he conducted examining the impact of Oscar nominations and awards on both best picture honours and movie guide ratings, the impact of men's best acting recognition was about twice that for women's best acting.

Another study by Simonton found the impact on best picture awards for outstanding performance in female lead roles was smaller than the power of outstanding performance in male supporting roles - and even smaller than the influence female supporting roles. No contribution, even that of the film editors, displayed a lower impact than did the female leads.

Great acting by women has little bearing on the overall assessment of a film, while great acting by men is much more closely linked to appreciation of a great movie.

Simonton backs up these statistical findings with concrete examples in his paper published in the journal 'Sex Roles'.

A very large number of women have won best acting Oscars in films that were not even nominated for best picture Oscars. The list he provides in his study includes such big names as Mary Pickford, Helen Hayes, Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Olivia De Havilland, Loretta Young, Ingrid Bergman, Joanne Woodward, Susan Hayward, Elisabeth Taylor, Sophia Loren, Anne Bancroft, Maggie Smith, Glenda Jackson, Jane Fonda, EllenBurstyn, Meryl Streep, Geraldine Page, Jodie Foster, Kathy Bates, Jessica Lange, Susan Sarandon and Halle Berry.

Simonton contends the career of Meryl Streep is most indicative of this phenomenon. Streep can claim more Oscar acting nominations than any other woman in the history of the Academy Awards, including both Katherine Hepburn and Bette Davis.

But most of her acting nominations were in films far removed from the running for best picture awards. Examples include roles in Music of the Heart, One True Thing, The Bridges of Madison County, Postcards from the Edge, A Cry in the Dark, and Ironweed.

Her outstanding acting performances, particularly later in her career, had become disconnected from the overall impact of the films in which she appeared. Simonton is not arguing that male actors never contribute award-winning performances to less than top-notch films, he contends however that the separation of stellar acting from film impact, seems more likely to happen for women than for men.

To test his theory, Simonton analysed all films that received special recognition in the 1936-2000 award ceremonies of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. For Best Picture Oscar the impact of a male best actor award or nomination is more than twice that for a female best actor award or nomination.

The discrepancies also hold for both the lead and supporting categories. Most strikingly, the disparity between men and women tends to exceed that between lead and supporting roles.

In other words, if a hypothetically neuter actor had to choose between a male supporting role or a female lead role, the former option would better guarantee an exceptional performance would be associated with an outstanding feature film.

Simonton analysed the data to check whether this gender effect varied across time from 1936 to 2000, and found the gender effect in Hollywood wasn't decreasing - indeed if anything it was getting slightly worse in more recent years.

But the Oscars have been criticised as merely reflecting local Hollywood tastes and politics, so Simonton analysed 1,367 films released between 1968 and 2000 which had received special recognition from one of the following seven societies: (a) the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, (b) the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA), (c) the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (Golden Globes), (d) the National Board of Review, (e) the National Society of Film Critics, (f) the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, and (g) New York Film Critics Circle.

These results again demonstrated that exceptional performance by a male supporting actor is much more likely to be found in an outstanding film than is an equally brilliant performance by a female lead. Indeed, a female lead's chances of being in a great film is about the same as that of a supporting actress.

Simonton wonders if his results can be explained by a deeply ingrained view of what counts as a great story. Perhaps the audience intuitively feels male roles are more strongly associated with superior stories.

This is a long-term trend dating back to classic literary masterworks, such as the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, Homer's Illiad, and Virgil's Aeneid. Such tales stress the same kind of action oriented hero who figures so prominently in the Hollywood blockbusters strongly associated with male leads.

Another possible explanation is that as all nominations for best director and best screenplay writer were for men this year, then the true power base in Hollywood remains firmly in the hands of men, explaining a bias against female leads and storytelling.

Simonton concludes that in a sense, therefore, as far as Hollywood is concerned, women are always playing supporting roles, even when their names appear up in lights, alongside the men.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2565245 2013-01-28T05:26:20-05:00 2013-03-30T05:12:01-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Psychologists agree the toughest challenge that elite athletes face, comes not from their opponents, but from themselves.

Andy Murray won the first set of the 2013 Australian Open, but then went on to lose the final to Novak Djokovic. The match demonstrates that at this level of the game, it is mental toughness which determines the victor, not superior technical skill. Djokovic had to control being rattled by his first set loss, while Murray allowed a first set advantage to be whittled away.

At 2-2 in the second set tie break, a feather floated down, distracting Murray from his second serve ball toss, producing a double fault at a critical moment. He is quoted afterwards in the Daily Telegraph newspaper as saying: "I mean, I could have served... It just caught my eye before I served. I thought it was a good idea to move it. Maybe it wasn't because I obviously double-faulted."

The press still don't get that this is all about psychology; the Daily Telegraph does not to see the key implication - that this apparently innocuous event reveals the state of Murray's mind and focus, and instead chooses to report one response to this event is that Ivan Lendl, Murray's trainer, couldn't have anticipated that the mating patterns of the local bird life, should have been in the pre-match briefing.

Mind games dominated the match, indeed, the tournament; a controversial 'tactical' time out by Victoria Azarenka turned her semi-final around against Sloane Stephens at a pivotal moment. Even though the incident was widely reported all around the world, team Murray didn't appear to have learned the crucial psychological lesson.

Instead of going off court for a medical time out (perhaps with more genuine medical need than Azarenka did against Stephens) to keep Djokovic guessing, and perhaps break up his rhythm, Murray chose to have his blister treated, parading it to the whole world, while on court, in the middle of the match.

Djokovic didn't sit down during this changeover, but instead used the cover of 'stretching', seizing the opportunity for a surreptitious stare at the state of Murray's feet. This was a tactical psychological disaster, and the game could only slip from the Scot's grasp once the Serbian understood the true physical state of his opponent.

If the rules of the game allowed Murray to take a medical time out off court, then this should have been his play at this moment. If he didn't choose this option, (if it was available to him) then this reveals an issue for Team Murray in a branch of psychology known as 'theory of mind', which is crucial to the kind of one-on-one competition elite tennis is.

Andre Agassi has described singles as the loneliest sport because, even boxers have the intimacy of their opponent for company in the ring, while on court, the net means no one ever gets close to you.

In the mental jousting that tennis becomes, Murray knew that Djokovic knew about the injury. 'Theory of mind' refers to thinking what your opponent is thinking, about what you are thinking.

The victors deploy mental strategy all the time, but it may be in their interests to keep from the public, press and rivals, just how vital this element in their armoury is to victory. Even so, before the match, Djokovic's coach confirmed in a TV interview that the contest with Murray was going to be primarily 'mental'. That he did so with a broad grin, suggests confidence that team Djokovic felt they had got inside Murray's head.

However, in Britain, there also remains a deep suspicion of brain and behaviour sciences, especially as applied to sport. Perhaps psychology is seen as somewhat 'feminine' in the macho culture of elite competition, or the 'stiff upper lip' 'pull your socks up' brigade may feel behavioural science still just means crying about your childhood to a nodding therapist.

Some sports psychology peddlers who do not base their interventions on data are definitely 'snake-oil' salesmen. But the longer UK Sport turns its back on the vital contributions proper scientific psychology has to make, the more sports fans here will have to endure coming second.

The importance of mental toughness in elite performance, not just in tennis, but all sport and in life is increasingly recognised. But what exactly is 'mental toughness' and how do you get it?

Anna-Marie Jaeschke and Professor Michael Sachs from Temple University in the USA quote in the magazine 'Marathon and Beyond', runner Twietmeyer as one inspiration for a study recently conducted by Jaeschke for her university thesis, advised on by Sachs, of 408 ultra-marathoners. All the participants in Jaeschke's study had run at least one race of 50 miles or longer.

Ultra-marathon running is a sport where by its very nature, the search for mental toughness is most likely to be successful.

The runners in this research rated the top three characteristics of mental toughness as (1) The ability to use failure to drive themselves to further success, (2) When training becomes physically and mentally tough due to obstacles, they keep going by reminding themselves of their goals and aspirations and why they are putting themselves through this and (3) The ability to recognize and rationalize failure while picking out the learning points to take forward.

Mental toughness means coping better than opponents with mental demands of sport; being more consistent and better in determination, focus, confidence, and control under pressure. Jaeschke and Sachs write in their article entitled '100,000 Miles Closer to a Definition of Mental Toughness: The farther you run, the more the mind dominates', that this research suggests mental toughness is the ability to transcend physical pain as well as environmental adversity.

But a key confusion is to mistake stoicism and toughness - stoicism is the Victorian inhibition of emotions, particularly any sign of vulnerability or weakness. Victoria Azarenka when she won championship point at the Australian Open, sobbed dramatically - anyone who has seen Novak Djokovic pound his racket into submission on the court floor, would not see him as 'unemotional'. The dramatic displays of release of emotion after victory, or defeat, in these champions indicate just how much there is pent up on the inside, and the astonishing level of control being exerted.

The key distinction is that the mentally tough can self-regulate: controlling impulses and emotions. They have superior self-confidence, appraisal of achievements, self-esteem, having a sense of purpose and contribution, self-efficacy, belief in abilities and strengths, and also self-control belief in control of one's life: captain of your ship and master of your fate.

Of course, it's easy for sedentary academics to pontificate about mental toughness - it is athletes like Andy Murray who courageously battle the reality of brutal competition.

All the more reason to pay attention to research like that of Jaeschke, as she indicates in her article with Michael Sachs in 'Marathon and Beyond' that she's in training to run an ultra-marathon herself.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2501676 2013-01-18T06:59:12-05:00 2013-03-20T05:12:01-04:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Psychologists familiar with the Machiavellian (or manipulative) personality type may not be that surprised. Machiavellianism, or manipulativeness, crucially explains effectiveness in evading capture for extended periods. It's this element to Armstrong's story which echoes that of Jimmy Savile's.

Machiavellianism is measured by personality tests and so called 'high Machs' - those who score high on Machiavellianism - are strategic long-term planners. Lance Armstrong has become famous for his apparently altruistic work with cancer charities - this echoes Jimmy Savile's extensive similar charitable pursuits.

Is it possible that in both cases benevolent involvement was part of a Machiavellian tactic to evade detection?

Such altruism distracts those who would otherwise be suspicious and investigate. It deflects questions over character, and also inhibits investigators because an implication is; you'll impede these valuable good works, by attacking someone responsible for helping others. Questions will be asked about your motivation in trying to pull down a basically decent person. How, also, to raise the alarm when battling against general good- will to the culprit?

Niccolò Machiavelli - after whom the personality type is now named - in his famous advice to anyone who sought power, did not actually advocate lying as a guiding principle. He merely assumed it was necessary in an imperfect world - this pragmatism underlies the core character of the Machiavellian. The 16th century founder of political science was eerily prophetic of Armstrong, Savile and modern times. Machiavelli emphasized maintaining a public appearance of virtue, while behind the front, practicing whatever it took to achieve one's ends.

Manipulation tactics are divided by psychologists into two main types - 'soft' - ingratiation and reasoning, or - 'hard' - such as direct assertiveness. Hard tactics are where the user forces their will on another person, leading to perceptions such as ''pushy.' 'Soft' strategy is designed to convince it is in your interest to do the machiavellian's bidding.

For example, the 'high Mach' will deploy ingratiation, compliments, favours and humour to create friendships. These 'friends' are actually being set up for later exploitation. Blindsided by camaraderie, they won't even see the exploitation, believing instead they are doing a friend a favour.

'High Machs' intuitively grasp one of the keys to trust is mood, so they influence emotional atmosphere.

Feelings dramatically sway judgements of whether you're being lied to or not, and this partly explains why most are so poor at spotting deceit. The way mood interferes with deceit detection also explains the paradox that we're often worse at spotting lies in those closest to us. Most day to day credibility decisions are in fact emotional. For example, deciding whether or not to believe a lover, friend, relative or colleague are judgements full of poignancy.

Psychologists Joseph Forgas and Rebekah East from the University of New South Wales, Sydney, recently illustrated this vital principle in a study entitled 'On being happy and gullible: Mood effects on skepticism and the detection of deception.'

After inducing positive or negative moods using films, participants in the study, published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, viewed deceptive or truthful interviews with those denying committing a theft. Being in a negative frame increased scepticism, and improved accuracy in detecting deception, while cheerful judges were more trusting and gullible.

One theory as to why being sad makes you better at spotting liars, while happiness lures you into gullibility, is that the whole evolutionary purpose of gloom, as wired into our brains, is signalling a problematic situation. Such predicaments require attention to detail, or vigilance, as a survival mechanism through history. On the other hand happiness signals a benign non-threatening scenario, and therefore inhibits vigilance. Sad people pay more attention to detail in conversation compared to the happy, and this means they are better able to spot small inconsistencies revealing deception in the manipulative.

This, along with many other tactics, explains how the manipulative get away with evading detection for so long, but what happens when they are before the TV cameras, and no one is any longer in a good mood? As, for example, with Lance Armstrong now on Oprah?

Leanne ten Brinke and Stephen Porter from the University of British Columbia recently conducted the most comprehensive study to date of extremely high-stakes, real-life deception. Televised footage of 78 individuals from all over the world emotionally pleading to the public for the return of a missing relative was meticulously studied frame-by-frame (30 frames/s for a total of 74,731 frames). About half of the pleaders eventually were convicted of killing the missing person.

For example, the authors point out Michael White of Canada, convinced even his victim's mother, by tearfully pleading for the return of his pregnant wife, yet he'd brutally murdered her only days before.

The authors of the study, published in the journal Law and Human Behaviour found besides subtle differences in body language, such as facial expression and blink rate, deceptive pleaders used more tentative words than the genuinely distressed.

For example, the authors quote Pam Poirier desperately pleading for her daughter's return: "Katie please call us and tell us you're okay. Whoever took our Katie, please tell her we miss her, we love her, and we want her to come home."

In contrast to this definiteness, deceptive murderers used more tentative words, possibly to unconsciously distance themselves from the transgression. For example, the authors quote wife killer Michael White: "If whoever has her, or if she's out there and you see me, and you see this, just stay there, we'll find you. We will, I'll find you." White tells his (murdered) wife that if she gets this message (which he knows she won't), she should stay and he'll find her.

The study entitled 'Cry Me a River: Identifying the Behavioral Consequences of Extremely High-Stakes Interpersonal Deception', reports that White indeed led police to his wife's body several days later.

It would appear that to better spot the Machiavellian we may have to use psychological techniques which get behind the conscious front, and access the unconscious.

But not just in them, in ourselves as well.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2407735 2013-01-04T19:00:00-05:00 2013-03-06T05:12:01-05:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
After apologising that we couldn't help, the feature editor's question - what do these photos and postings reveal about this celebrity's state of mind - reminded us psychologists have begun to pose this question generally about more ordinary internet users. Behavioural scientists wonder if new technology is shaping our personality, and whether sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter are driving a new narcissism epidemic?

Some academics have produced research suggesting we are the most self-centred, self-obsessed generation in history, and the internet may partly be to blame.

A new study just published entitled Narcissism or Openness? College Students' Use of Facebook and Twitter, is one of a growing number of scientific attempts to answer the question of whether our tweets reveal we are all becoming diva's?

The authors of the investigation, Bruce McKinney, professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Lynne Kelly, and Robert Duran, both professors in the Department of Communication at the University of Hartford, USA, were prompted to conduct the research because Twitter indeed seems a perfect tool for revealing otherwise hidden narcissism.

The belief that there is an audience interested in following one's moment-to-moment postings suggests to some psychologists, egocentrism, self-aggrandisement, and self-importance, all characteristic of the excessively narcissistic.

This new study, just published in the academic journal Communication Research Reports, surveyed 233 undergraduates and found those with significantly higher scores on narcissism also reported sending more tweets about themselves. Narcissism was unrelated to the frequency of using Facebook to post about oneself but, was related to a larger number of Facebook friends.

Since narcissists tend to alienate others over time, they may prefer the more superficial connections, not marked by emotional closeness, social networking sites can provide. Previous research confirms narcissism is related to the number of 'friends' on sites like Facebook, but not the number of true friends, in real life.

Narcissism in extreme form becomes a personality disorder characterised by a grandiose sense of self-importance, fantasies of unlimited power, conceit and superficial relationships.

Jean Twenge, a professor of psychology at San Diego State Univeristy, and Keith Campbell, professor of psychology at the University of Georgia, authored a new book entitled The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, arguing we are in the grip of a new narcissism pandemic escalating over the past two decades.

Studying more than 16,000 college students, Twenge and Campbell found that today's youth score substantially higher on narcissism than those of their age just 20 years ago. Two-thirds of recent college students scored above the average in narcissism, compared to half of the college students who took the same test in the late Seventies and early Eighties.

If narcissism is increasing, this is ominous for the mental health of future generations. It's associated with a strong sense of entitlement, which leads to unhappiness, through a sense of deprivation. Narcissists can't have proper deeper relationships because they merely seek to exploit others for their own ends - friends and lovers are always stepping stones to something better.

If it feels we live in angrier times then this may be linked to narcissism being associated with responding aggressively to insults, and slights, while it's also associated with vengeance seeking. Incidentally in the light of recent pop star photos, this might explain the use of Twitter as the battle ground for so many celebrity feuds.

Another recent investigation entitled 'The effect of social networking websites on positive self-views: An experimental investigation' found use of MySpace was linked to narcissism but not Facebook. The study published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior found spending just about half an hour editing one's MySpace page, and writing about it's meaning, was enough to significantly raise narcissism, suggesting that social networking sites may have profound impact on the development of personality and identity.

Yet those who spent time editing and thinking about their Facebook page reported higher levels of self-esteem, but not elevated levels of narcissism.

The authors of the research, Brittany Gentile, Jean Twenge, Elise Freeman and Keith Campbell argue the contrasting results, in terms of impact on narcissism between Facebook and MySpace, may be due to key differences between the sites.

MySpace, Brittany Gentile and colleagues contend, offers the opportunity for users to create a personal brand, customizing profiles using stylisation code, in contrast to the standard format used on Facebook. MySpace users also have the option to share more profile information publicly. Thus, MySpace may offer greater opportunities for self-expression and self-promotion than Facebook.

In addition, the authors argue, MySpace offers the potential for fame. Celebrities have been born out of the strength of their following (e.g., Tila Tequila, Jeffree Star) or unearthing their flair on MySpace (e.g., Colbie Caillat, Lily Allen). In contrast, Facebook markets itself by appealing to the more mundane project of keeping in touch with friends and family.

McKinney, Kelly, and Duran conclude from their study that it is not the technology that creates narcissism, as much as it is the narcissistic personality that seeks technologies allowing the user to become the centre of attention.

The authors also wonder whether social networking sites, in fostering a new culture of personal disclosure, might be positive psychologically in the longer run. Given the stigma and shame around mental health issues, for example, it remains to be seen whether the 'new openess' will improve our mental health, as there may be less shame and taboo in sharing what previous generations have regarded as private.

What these studies suggests is the way you use social media unerringly reveals your personality. So if you are aware of this latest psychological research, in fact you now possess greater tools and opportunities to get inside the mind of friends, colleagues, lovers, break-ups and adversaries, than ever before.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2385088 2012-12-31T12:21:35-05:00 2013-03-02T05:12:02-05:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/ The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891), Wilde declared, "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it. Resist it, and your soul grows sick with longing for the things it has forbidden to itself."

William James, an eminent 20th Century psychologist, illustrates the power of desire in an anecdote from his chapter on will in the The Principles of Psychology (1890); An alcoholic was put into an almshouse nearby, but his cravings resulted in various elaborate schemes to get a drink, which had all failed. Then: "He went into the wood-yard of the establishment, placed one hand upon the block, and with an axe in the other struck it off at a single blow. With the stump raised and streaming he ran into the house and cried, 'Get some rum! get some rum! My hand is off!' In the confusion and bustle of the occasion a bowl of rum was brought, into which he plunged the bleeding member of his body, then raising the bowl to his mouth, drank freely, and exultingly exclaimed, 'Now I am satisfied.'"

James also tells of another alcoholic undergoing treatment whose cravings led him to drink from the anatomy jars containing pathology specimens.

William James' and Oscar Wilde's sage arguments on how desire normally controls us, anticipates a key finding in modern psychological research; superior self-control has recently been shown an extremely powerful feature of personality, predicting success and happiness more reliably into the future, than possibly any other trait.

But the very latest thinking is that those who score high on self-control lead lives characterised by effective habits and routines, rather than deploying that much active resistance. Better self-control seems to involve avoiding temptations, rather than resisting them. In fact those with high self-control basically don't waste time or effort battling inducements, because their habits and routines place themselves in environments where enticement is not present.

This argument arises from a study entitled 'Everyday Temptations: An Experience Sampling Study of Desire, Conflict, and Self-Control' where a team of psychologists got over 200 adults in Wurzburg, Germany to wear pagers for a week. Each time they were beeped, they were asked to report on what desires they felt at the moment.

Almost 8000 'desire episodes' were recorded in this study recently published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, while participants indicated at least one current desire on half the occasions they were beeped, on average, desires were actively resisted on 42% of occasions, but nonetheless enacted on 17% of these 'resistance attempts'. Now we know the average rate of self-control failure in the general population.

The psychologists, Wilhelm Hofmann (University of Chicago Booth School of Business), Roy Baumeister (Florida State University), Georg Förster (University of Wurzburg) and Kathleen Vohs (University of Minnesota), who conducted the study, found personality was a key aspect of desire and resistance. Certain personality features were associated with greater weakness when it came to resistance. For example, narcissistic entitlement reflects an attitude that one ought to have what one wants, and indeed deserve more than others, linked to the sense of being a special, superior person; those scoring high in narcissistic entitlement were more likely to enact their desires.

It seems from this and other research, that in fact, you should assume 'will power' doesn't exist, rather than invest in it. Presume you will inevitably succumb to temptation, in which case avoid the lure rather than test yourself. Alcoholics Anonymous' programme is, roughly speaking, based on this principle, as is the strategy of getting rid of all tobacco or fattening foods from the home.

But, sooner or later, temptation crosses your path - what then? A team of psychologists, Evan Forman, James Herbert, Kimberly Hoffman, Adrienne Juarascio and Meghan Butryn, from Drexel University, Philadelphia, asked 48 overweight women to carry a box of candy on their person for 72 hours, while abstaining from the treats.

In the study, to be published in 2013 in the academic journal Eating Behaviors, the group was assigned to attempt either one of two possible cognitive strategies to resist temptation. The first approach was the standard 'distraction' technique most widely deployed today, including trying not to think about the sweets.

The second technique involves 'acceptance' rather than active resistance of cravings. In the study entitled 'Comparison of acceptance-based and standard cognitive-based coping strategies for craving sweets in overweight and obese women', this second group were taught cravings for sweets are normal and expected, outside voluntary control, accepting cravings without trying to change them.

The latest theory is that it's the desperate desire to relieve yearning, which contributes to poorer self-control. The study found that compared to standard, 'control-based' strategies, 'acceptance-based' approaches resulted in reduced cravings and consumption of sweets.

The key here appears to be the mental plan if craving arrived. Two Professors of psychology at New York University, and world authorities on goal achievement, have shown that two crucial psychological techniques are particularly effective. These are 'mental contrasting' (Gabriele Oettingen) and 'implementation intentions' (Peter Gollwitzer).

Mental contrasting involves imagining in detail the desired control over your life, and contrasting that with the present personal predicament. This produces better appreciation of each critical obstacle to better control, generating a focus on overcoming specific hurdles. Implementation intentions involves detailed planning of not just what you want - which is what New Year's resolutions focus on - but how you're going to get it.

Implementation Intentions requires 'if-then' thinking - if offered a cigarette or cream bun, what to do then?

It was possibly the ancient Greeks who first discovered these powerful psychological tactics. Odysseus might be demonstrating them when he plugs his crew's ears with bee's wax, anticipating the lure of the Sirens' songs, enticing passing ships to the rocks. He also asked to be tied to the ship's mast, preventing him obeying his desires to succumb to the Sirens' call. True to the legend, if sailors did venture by without falling under their spell, as Odysseus triumphantly did, the Sirens drowned.

Your temptations and desires will also inevitably flounder, if you prepare for those Siren calls, luring you to wreck your resolutions.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2357763 2012-12-24T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-23T05:12:01-05:00

Adrian Furnham http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adrian-furnham/
Economists grumble giving cash would actually look after the interests of recipients better, than that pair of socks or the soon abandoned scarf. If we really cared most efficiently for those around us, we should give money. Tore Ellingsen and Magnus Johannesson from the Stockholm School of Economics, in a recent paper entitled 'Conspicuous Generosity' list the reasons it's more efficient and rational to unwrap cheques on Christmas morning.

Firstly, buying gifts runs the risk of purchasing something the recipient doesn't want and therefore won't value; currency allows them to get exactly what they desired. Secondly, presents consume an enormous amount of time, and other resources, being tracked down. Cash giving saves incalculable time, stress and the polar ice caps.

Joel Waldfogel, a Professor of Applied Economics at the Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, showed from large surveys of those receiving gifts, that when asked what cash sum they would take if offered money, instead of the gift they actually got, recipients were on average willing to accept a sum significantly less than what the gift was actually worth. In spending billions across the planet buying someone a present, the world is wasting significant resources. A high price to pay for sentiment.

During this season charity fund raisers actively appeal for the disadvantaged. They almost universally don't ask for presents - much preferring you donate cash - because this is pragmatically the most useful contribution you could make. If it's obviously more helpful than other gifts in the domain of charity, so economists remain perplexed as to the irrational paradox of continuing to buy each other 'suboptimal' presents?

Tore Ellingsen and Magnus Johannesson propose in their recent paper published in the 'Journal of Public Economics' there are various reasons we don't give money. Money has unpleasant associations, including selfishness; various psychology experiments demonstrate that the mere presence of money or even if it's presented subliminally below conscious awareness, seems to drive people towards behaving inconsiderately. Similar experiments indicate people are more generous when they have the chance only to give time, than when they have the opportunity simply to donate money.

Gifts are really about signalling your regard for the other, and this explains why almost universally presents that take time and effort are preferred to those that cost a lot. One argument against cash becoming the mode of exchange on Christmas, is that it would be too easy to fake relationships by simply writing a large cheque. People intuitively know this - they prefer the better test of how much they are cared for, which is the inconvenience of locating and bringing a proper present. Those who are too bowled over by easy largesse might be demonstrating deep down insecurity - is it any accident that it's the mistress rather than the wife who usually gets the more glamorous present?

Females are disproportionately active as Christmas gift givers, giving 84% of all gifts, and receiving only 61%, confirming what psychologists have long suspected - they shoulder the main burden of relationship maintenance. Women divide their gifts equally between males and females. Male givers without female "collaborators" are relatively rare (16%) and most of their gifts are given to females. Gifts from males to males are rare (4%) compared to gifts from females to females (17%). Women are much more active gift givers than men at Christmas, tending to select the gift if part of joint giving, and giving more gifts singly.

There are also never likely to ever be bundles of cash waiting under the Christmas Tree, because if the exchange of money became the norm, it might be relationships would deteriorate. In this new more rational and efficient universe where currency is king on Christmas Day, how confident could we be of being appreciated for ourselves, as opposed to the size of our wallets? There becomes a kind of charm to the 'sub-optimal' nature of many presents - Ellingsen and Johannesson cite economists who argue offerings with low 'user value' indeed prevent people from entering relationships simply in order to collect gifts.

Ellingsen and Johannesson quote a recent field experiment from Economist Sebastian Kube of the University of Bonn, and colleagues Michel André Maréchal and Clemens Puppe, where workers individually hired for a job were given unanticipated gifts by the employer, some monetary and others non-monetary. The value of the non-monetary gift was known to the subjects and identical to the monetary gift. The cash gift was preferred, yet the non-monetary gift was considered a more credible signal of kindness. Workers' subsequent performance responded only weakly to cash gifts, but positively and strongly to the non-monetary gift.

It's vital to remember during this season when gift-giving is the norm, the psychological power of the unexpected gift during the rest of the year.

Ellingsen and Johannesson suggest why few ask for cash, although the research suggests most would frequently prefer it, is no one wants to appear driven by money. Presents are therefore all about what lies behind the wrapping; the true exchange is regard, and is indeed therefore fundamentally psychological. Every present reveals something about what the giver thinks of the recipient.

Ellingsen and Johannesson quote a song lyric, 'A man has two reasons for the things that he does. The first one is pride and the second one is love' by Hüsker Dü from the song 'She Floated Away' on the album 'Warehouse: Songs and Stories'.

It would seem the more you give and receive with love, and perhaps the less with pride, the better your Christmas might be.

A gift is the outward manifestation of understanding. A perfect gift is what the recipient really wants, enjoys and appreciates, and would not buy for themselves.

Merry Christmas everybody, and please don't over-analyse everything.]]>