“Peacocking” and the Von Restorff Effect: The Science of Standing Out
By Heath Shive 

Back in the 2000s, there was (and might still be) a legion of people on the internet identifying as pickup artists. 

The most famous pickup artist (PUA) of them all was a man named Mystery, who was the central character of the best-selling book The Game by Neil Strauss.

Mystery popularized the idea of "peacocking” – the use of flair and wild dress to invoke interest.  He would enter bars with rings on all his fingers, platform shoes, black fingernails, and a crumpled black velvet hat. 

The point was to first get noticed – only then could a PUA begin to cultivate interest.

In psychology, the von Restorff effect predicts that the stimulus that differs the most from others is most likely the stimulus remembered. 

More different is more memorable.   

During the 2000s – following the lead of the PUA gurus – God-only-knows how many men were walking into bars with rings, rhinestone glasses, and shaved heads. 

It’s easy to notice such men – but people ignore Science at their own peril. 

To the science!

The von Restorff Effect

The von Restorff Effect is named after Hedwig von Restorff.  She is the most famous (though not the first) early researcher on the role of distinctiveness on memory. 

Von Restorff’s most obvious contribution was that the distinctiveness of an item depends on a strong similarity among the non-isolated items. 

Read the following list: 1, 2, 3, 4, purple, 6, 7.

Easy to see that the word purple stands out.  All other items on the list are numbers, thus strongly similar. 

Distinction Can Be a Bad Thing Too

Now read this list: otter, raccoon, tarantula, penguin, giraffe. 

Now which word stands out?  Most likely you say tarantula.  But why?  Haven’t you noticed that giraffe is also very different?  The giraffe is an herbivore, all the others are hunters. 

But tarantula has a greater emotional response than giraffe. 

Psychologist R. Reed Hunt - who wrote a great summarization of the subtleties of the von Restorff effect – reminds us that equating “perceptual salience with distinctiveness blurs a fundamental distinction.” 

In other words, difference is dissimilarity with the surroundings; but distinctiveness is the “psychological effect of dissimilarity.”   

So you can be a vivid memory, but what is your psychological effect?  Are you distinctly...awful?

Conclusion

Mystery and his hat-wearing, purple-boa sporting crew went into urban night clubs – places where they could be different…but not in a bad way.

When I read The Game, not once did I read of Mystery and his gang walking into a country-western bar or biker bar or a bar next to a Marine base – places where their flair would be a bad distinction. 

For that matter, I never read of them going to Trent Reznor or Marilyn Manson concerts – where their wild clothing would make them strongly similar (conform) rather than isolate them distinctly. 

In other words, “peacocking” must be tailor-made – done in a specific way in specific crowds for specific effects.

Standing out can make you distinct – and it can make you an easier target too.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Hunt, R. Reed .  (1995).  The subtlety of distinctiveness: What von Restorff really did. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.  2(1), 105-112 (Accessed 15 Oct 2018)
Strauss, Neil.  The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists.  Reganbooks, 2005.  

Dark Matter: The Ghost Right Next to You Is Big As the Universe
​By Heath Shive 

Right next to you.  Right now. There is a ghost as big as the universe. 

You cannot see it.  No device or instrument on Earth can detect it.  But it is there.
 
It is called dark matter. 

Dark matter and dark energy comprise the majority of the universe.  By the numbers, 68% of the universe is comprised of dark energy, 27% is dark matter, and only about 5% of the universe is detectable by modern science.  As one NASA article said, “More is unknown than is known.”

If Undetectable, How Do We Know About Dark Matter?

Early astronomers had noticed that stars were not evenly distributed and instead seemed to form patches and “clouds.”  By the early 20th century, astronomers realized that the “clouds” were actually different galaxies – which meant the Milky Way was not the whole universe. 

Even weirder, these galaxies seemed to form clusters which spun around an unseen axis. 

In the early 1930s, Swiss physicist Fritz Zwicky made measurements of the Coma galaxy cluster.  By measuring the star density, he could estimate the total mass of the galaxies.  He then measured how fast the galaxies were spinning. 

But the galaxies were spinning far too quickly!  They should be flying apart!  But they were stable.

Galaxies Spin, So What? 

Let me borrow an illustration made by Michael Brooks in his book “13 Things That Don’t Make Sense.”  Imagine that you have a tennis ball on the end of a rope.  Now imagine that you are spinning while holding that rope.  Now the ball is spinning in a constant orbit at a constant height. 

Now put a bowling ball on the end of the rope!  Now imagine how fast you would have to spin to have the bowling ball fly in the same orbit as the tennis ball.  You would have to spin much, much faster, right?

The greater the mass, the faster you have to spin to maintain orbit. 

Zwicky noticed that the galaxies were spinning at a far greater velocity than their size would indicate.  They should fly apart!  But they were stable.  Zwicky concluded that the galaxies were actually much, much denser – with an enormous mass that science could not detect. 

Dark Matter Discovered 

Zwicky couldn’t see the extra mass.  It was invisible.  This invisible mass was an order of magnitude greater than the visible mass!  This was the first true discovery of dark matter.

Dark matter and dark energy form the majority of the universe.  They cannot be seen.  They do not create any measurement in the electromagnetic spectrum – and thus are not detectable by any technology that humans possess!

They are ghosts – ghosts as big and wide as the universe. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 

Brooks, Michael.  13 Things That Don’t Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time.  Doubleday, 2008. 

“Dark Energy, Dark Matter.”  Nasa.gov. National Aeronautics and Space Administration.  Accessed 15 October 2017.  https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

The Ghost of Your Ex: Country Music and the Law of Contagion
By Heath Shive 

Country artist Jason Aldean has a song out called Drowns the Whiskey.  He sings: "Maybe it's the bar or the stool I'm on/Maybe it's the band and the sad old song/ That keeps me buying rounds." 

The "sad old song" is not literally making him drink.  It's the association between the song...and her.  This is actually a rule in psychology known as the Law of Contagion. 

To the science! (And a sad old story) 

Once Upon a Time 

Once upon a time, I was crazy for a woman.  I drove half-way across the state and back just to spend an evening with her!  Crazy! 

She told me that I had better like country music – it was a “deal-breaker.”  I didn’t hate country music.  It just hadn’t appealed to me earlier.  But lo and behold, I came to like the stuff!  Even put a country station on my car’s radio button.   

But, the candle that burns twice as bright lasts half as long.  A while later, she and I parted ways. Not long after, I was listening to country music…and I couldn’t stand it.  Changed the music station on my radio button.

But why? 

“Country music” itself was not responsible for my broken heart.  I didn’t have a torrid affair with Reba McEntire or Miranda Lambert – though I would invite both of them to try (wink).

But she loved country music – therefore country music had been compromised.

Sounds crazy, but it actually has to do with an idea in psychology called the law of contagion – an idea that first got its start as a law of sympathetic magic!

Don’t believe me?

To the science and magic!

The Science of Roach Juice

Back in 1986, psychologists Paul Rozin, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff published a hilarious series of studies on the laws of contagion and laws of similarity. 

In one experiment, students were asked to taste and rate 2 kinds of juice (apple and grape) from 2 different glasses.  Afterwards, one juice glass was touched by a sterilized, dead cockroach and the other was touched by a plastic candle holder.  Do I have to say it?  The students rated the “roached” juice with intense dislike – even though, scientifically speaking the juice was fine. 

But here’s the trick.  Fresh juice was then poured into new glasses!

Whichever juice had touched the roach in the previous experiment was subsequently judged worse than the original rating! 

This was fresh juice in a new glass – but the memory of contamination remained and conditioned the students’ judgments.

The Law of Contagion

The law of contagion states that a lasting connection is created between 2 objects that have been in contact with each other – or at least, if we “connect” them mentally.  The law of contagion is generally ascribed to James George Frazer – author of the seminal work The Golden Bough.   

It’s a magic trope.  If an evil person dies in a house, then you get a haunted house.  Or conversely, a saint’s bones or relics have benevolent powers. 

But Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff showed that there were psychological underpinnings to the idea, or that the “magic” involved was only a reflection of real and unconscious instincts. 

Conclusion

Our ancient ancestors didn’t have hygiene science or even soap!  Dangerous contagion was real and all around.  It shouldn’t surprise us that an instinct developed to urge us in the right direction. 

But that instinct can be evoked in crazy ways.  And I was pretty crazy about her…once upon a time.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:

Rozin, Paul & Millman, Linda & Nemeroff, Carol. (1986). Operation of the Laws of Sympathetic Magic in Disgust and Other Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  50 (4), 703-712. 

Ice Age Ghosts and Their Groceries
By Heath Shive
 
Herbivores and plants have a tentative quid pro quo.  Herbivores get food.  Ideally, plants get seed dispersal.  However, many herbivores - like rodents - eat seeds rather than disperse them! 

No seeds, no future.  That’s why some plants adapt defenses like toxic seeds.  What we consider “spices” (e.g., black pepper) are really just seeds defending themselves. 

Therefore, symbiotic plant-animal relationships are very specific.  And some of those relationships could be over 10,000 years old!

To the plants...and their Ice Age ghosts!

The Case of the Useless Fruit
 
Years ago, in Costa Rica, ecologist Dan Janzen noticed that many of the larger tropical fruits were going uneaten, just rotting away. 

Together Janzen and Paul S. Martin wrote a paper entitled “Neotropical Anachronisms” where they hypothesized that many fruit trees might still be making food for Ice Age megafauna (giant sloths, mastodons, mammoths, glyptodonts, etc.). 

These great beasts were symbiotes.  Now they’re extinct.  But the trees still remember them and make Ice Age groceries to this day.

The Ghosts of Evolution
 
Connie Barlow’s book The Ghosts of Evolution explores this idea in depth.  Her anachronistic examples include honey locusts, Osage orange, calabash, paw paws, persimmon trees and others.  All of these plants produce large fruit harvests that go largely nowhere.  They’ve had to develop alternate means to survive without Ice Age megafauna, and their numbers were dwindling as a result. 
 
For example, the Osage orange produces a softball-sized fruit that looks like a green brain.  It’s made of a latex-like material, and it tastes worse than it looks.  No animal is known to eat this fruit.  By the time European colonists arrived in America, the population was restricted to a small tri-state range around Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
 
Humans now propagate some of these “anachronisms”.  Osage orange trees make excellent natural fences for farms. Honey locust trees thrive in cities and arid climates to provide shade. 
 
Noted ecologist Henry Howe critiqued the idea of anachronisms in his 1988 book Ecological Relationships of Plants and Animals.  Though Howe thought the idea intriguing, he criticized the hypothesis on two points.  First, if the megafauna were the seed dispersers, then how could the plants survive “for 500 years, much less ten millennia” after the Ice Age megafaunal extinction?  Second, how could one even begin to prove this hypothesis?
 
But it should be remembered that even if megafauna were the primary dispersers, it doesn’t mean they were the only dispersers.  For example, without the honeybee, flowering plants wouldn’t go extinct, but many flowering plants certainly would dwindle. 

Besides, some plants find alternate means to survive.  For example, some plants will send out root suckers to form nearby clone trees.  Some of the oldest plants in the world have survived this way.       

Conclusion
 
This hypothesis is by no means perfect, but it seems better than any other alternative explanation for all the “nonsensical fruit.”  Kind of a lonely story, really.  Smacks of unrequited love. 

But my advice for these trees, or any lonely heart, is this:  They are plenty of other symbiotes in this big crazy world!  Good luck!

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!
 
Sources:  
Barlow, Connie.  The Ghosts of Evolution:  Nonsensical Fruit, Missing Partners, and Other Ecological Anachronisms.  New York:  Basic Books, 2000.   
 
Howe, Henry F., and Lynn C. Westley, 1988, Ecological Relationships of Plants and Animals (New York:  Oxford University Press)
 
Janzen, Daniel H., and Paul S. Martin, 1982, “Neotropical Anachronisms:  The Fruits the Gomphotheres Ate,” Science 215:  19-27.  

Is Love Just a Fantasy?  Is That a Good Thing?
By Heath Shive 

As one critic put it, Terry Pratchett was “the wisest and gentlest of teachers.”

Terry Pratchett is my favorite author.  He had more than 85 million copies of his books sold, in more than 37 languages. Pratchett was also a knight in the United Kingdom!

But he’s most famous for his Discworld series, of which there are 41 novels. 

Pratchett thought that Mercy and Justice were fantasies. 

And he thought that was a wonderful thing, even an essential thing for people!

I would say the same about Love. 

Want to know why?

To the Terry Pratchett!

Hogfathers and the Power of Fantasy

In Pratchett’s Discworld, magic is so strong that if enough people believe in something, then it becomes real.  If enough people believe in a certain god, the god will pop into existence.  Gods can also die from a lack of belief. 

There are also Auditors – creatures of the Universe who keep the laws of Nature running smoothly.  The Auditors hate life because life is sloppy, messy, and chaotic.  But Death (who is a person) admires life – because he admires the way we continually try.

In the novel Hogfather, the Auditors set out to assassinate the Hogfather – a kind of Santa Claus that brings bacon, sausages, and hams to good boys and girls every winter.

Death and his step-granddaughter Susan set out to stop this.  And they succeed.  But at the end, Susan wants to know Why. 

Why would Death care about whether children have a Hogfather to believe in?  
 
Death explains: children need to practice believing in little fantasies (like the Hogfather), so they grow up to believe in even bigger fantasies, like mercy and justice!

Susan shouts, “They're not the same at all!”

But Death responds (in capital letters): “YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY…”

To Death, the universe gives us carbon, methane, water, etc.  But there is no mercy or justice or love in the universe. Humans invented these concepts. 

It is the very invention of these fantasies – including Love – that make us human!

Or as Pratchett’s Death says, these fantasies make humans “THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.”

The Fantasy of Love

Without these fantasies (Love, Mercy, Justice, etc.), we cannot be human.  We would just be another animal.

That is why a public education has to be about a common pool of fantasy.  How else could large groups of people believe in the same concepts of freedom, equality, and justice?
 
Because a fantasy must be shared in order to grow. 

Two people can share a great love – which means they both have the same fantasy at the same time.  A few couples share this fantasy for a lifetime.  The fantasy exists – it becomes real – as long as you believe in it.

And sometimes, one of those two lovers (or both) stops believing in the same love – the same fantasy – which leads to a reality called divorce.

The older that I become, the more I distrust the fantasy of Romantic Love. 

However, the older that I become, the more I believe in the fantasies of Kindness and Compassion – which are also kinds of Love.

But the real question is this: What will you believe?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Source:
Pratchett, Terry.  Hogfather.  HarperPrism, 1998. 

The Power of Charisma: How Do They Do It?
By Heath Shive 

Charisma projects outward from an individual and stimulates us.  A charismatic person can seduce people one-by-one or on a massive scale.

Robert Greene – author of the The Art of Seduction – tells us that a Charismatic relies on the power of words because words are the quickest way to create emotional stimulation. Words can elevate, energize, and motivate.

But which words?  And how?

Maybe charisma is just narcissism – extroverted and eloquent narcissism.

To the science!

Bragging Is Better?

In 1992, psychologists Lynn Miller, Linda Cooke, Jennifer Tsang, and Faith Morgan performed some studies on the nature of “positive” disclosure versus “boastful” disclosure.  Both positive and boastful disclosures involve communicating your achievements, but boasting adds an element of competition and “one upmanship.”  Boasting implies that you beat somebody.

In one of the studies, the researchers had the study subjects respond to characters who disclosed in either a boastful, positive, or negative fashion.  The respondents rated both the boasters and positive disclosers as more competent than the negative “wimpy” (my word) disclosers.

Later, respondents rated the positive discloser to be more “socially involved.”

But the boasters were rated as more competent! 

The Charisma of Popularity

In 2011, psychologists Mitja Back, Stefan Schmukle, and Boris Egloff performed a study on the first impressions that popular people make.  They gathered 73 college students on their first day of class (so that they didn’t know each other). All the students had to introduce themselves individually in front of the class.  Immediately after this introduction, the rest of the class evaluated the student (no pressure!).

Then, each student had to fill out a questionnaire at home which determined whether the student’s personality was – among other things – self-centered (narcissist) or self-transcendent (nice).

The most popular people in the class were of 2 types: extraverts and the self-centered.  Extraverts were considered popular because they were seen as more fashionable, more self-assured, had a friendly facial expression, strong voice, and an original introduction.

Self-centered people were popular for the exact same reasons!
 
Perhaps at first, we can be attracted to self-centered people not because they are self-centered, but because they superficially seem to be like extraverts!

But whereas extraverts genuinely like other people, self-centered people view others as being inferior.

But Sooner or Later

In 1998, psychologist Delroy Paulhus performed a study on 124 college students, who were divided into groups.  Each group contained a narcissist.  At the end of the 1st meeting, the narcissists were considered intelligent, confident, and entertaining.  The group seemed to enjoy their presence.

But by the 7th meeting, narcissists were not liked at all.

Conclusion

Robert Green warns that charisma is as volatile as the emotions it stirs.  Too much charisma for too long creates fatigue, and a desire for calmness and order.

So when I hear someone say “charisma,” I think “narcissist who talks well…for now.”

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Back, M.D., Schmukle, S. C., & Egloff, B. (2010b). A closer look at first sight: Social relations lens model analysis of personality and interpersonal attraction at zero acquaintance.  European Journal of Personality. 3, 225-238.

Miller, Lynn, & Cooke, Linda & Tsang, Jennifer & Morgan, Faith.  (1992). Should I Brag?  Nature and Impact of Positive and Boastful Disclosures for Women and Men.  Human Communication Research.  18 (3).  364-399.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998).  Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1197-1208.
​

There’s Someone for Everyone: The Science!
By Heath Shive

When we're feeling negative, the 2 genders can have a mean view of each other.

“Men are all ….”

“Women are just …”

These sentences never end well. 

But it turns out we are mostly wrong, and that’s great news for everyone!

To the science!

What Women Think About Men

In 2009, psychologist Glenn Geher performed a study on “the ability to assess the mating desires of the opposite sex.”  A successful romantic strategy requires that you read the thoughts and feelings of potential mates.  So Geher designed a fairly large study – nearly 500 young men and women – to get some data. 

In the study, women were asked to guess who men would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical females.  The list has been abbreviated for this article as follows:

A.  “Who said chivalry was dead?  Open doors for me…I will make your favorite sandwich when you wake up hungry in the night.”
B.  “I am looking for a fling of epic proportions…Human beings are not meant to be paired for life, like lobsters.”
C.  “I know all the words to Grease…I am looking for someone who can make my heart sing.”

Of the study’s women, the majority (53%) thought men would choose option B – i.e., the “fling” lady.  But as it turns out, the majority of the study’s men (54%) chose the “chivalry” lady from option A!

Only 24% of men chose the horny B option.  And surprisingly enough, 22% of the men wanted the musical lady option!

Women had a tendency to oversexualize men’s choices.

What Men Think About Women

In the study, men were asked to guess who women would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical males.  This list has been abbreviated as follows:

A. “I’m pretty busy working all week, but that doesn’t stop me from having fun, usually out and about a couple nights during the week…”
B.  “I’ve been described as a very energetic individual…I’m a man in a uniform looking for some fun.”
C.  "I’m spontaneous and I like to try new things.  I enjoy diversity, cultures, art…good food and intelligent conversation.”

Of the study’s men, almost half (49%) thought women would choose option B – the man in uniform.  But as it turns out, almost half of the women (48%) chose option C – the diversity and arts man!

Only 29% of the women chose the very masculine man in uniform (B).  And surprisingly enough, 23% of the women chose the fairly ordinary guy in option A!

Men had a tendency to oversexualize women’s choices. 

Conclusion

So both men and women had a tendency to oversexualize the thought processes of the opposite gender. 

​But look at the numbers again.  Even though the musical “Grease” lady was the least picked option, still at least 1 in 5 men wanted to date her!

Even though the “ordinary” guy was the least picked option, still about 1 in 5 women wanted to date him!

You do not have to be the most popular option to be chosen!

Given the billions of men and women in the world – and the myriad varieties of desires in that mad tumble – you can afford to be optimistic.  Somebody out there wants to date you!

But the trick is…how do you find them?

Sigh.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Geher, Glenn, and Kaufman, Scott Barry.  Mating Intelligence Unleashed: The Role of the Mind in Sex, Dating, and Love. Oxford University Press, 2013.       

There's a Formula for Self-Esteem?
By Heath Shive

Worried about your self-esteem?  You are not alone. 

The term “self-esteem” was coined by the great psychologist William James over a hundred years ago in his masterpiece Principles of Psychology. 

To James, your self-esteem could be determined by a simple equation: 
Self-esteem = Success / Pretensions

So you could increase your self-esteem in two ways.  As Alain de Botton – author of the book Status Anxiety – writes, “On the one hand, we may try to achieve more; and on the other we may reduce the number of things we want to achieve.” (Italics added).

“Success” is usually defined as more money, more prestige, more status, more sex, more power, more influence, more fame, more achievements, etc.

For more self-esteem, you could increase your success.  Or…you could also reduce your pretensions. 

How so?

To the philosophy!

Pretensions and the F-word

Pretensions are simply what you think you should have. 

You drive a minivan, but you think you deserve a SUV (even though both just carry your butt to the same place).  You think your kids should be in private school (even though plenty of kids are going to public and doing just fine).  You think you should be promoted (even though your work performance isn’t the best). 

As Mark Manson – author of The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck – writes: “It has become an accepted part of our culture today to believe that we are all destined to do something truly extraordinary.  Celebrities say it.  Business tycoons say it. Politicians say it.  Even Oprah says it (so it must be true).”

Even if people didn’t say such platitudes, then commercials, TV and movies would blast the same message at you anyway. Manson writes: “Everyone and their TV commercial wants you to believe that the key to a good life is a nicer job, or a more rugged car, or a prettier girlfriend…The world is constantly telling you that the path to a better life is more, more, more…”

According to James’ equation, as you increase  your pretensions you decrease your self-esteem!

So Manson advocated that people not give “a f*ck” (i.e., reduce your pretensions), then the “stress and anxiety of always feeling inadequate and constantly needing to prove yourself will dissipate” so that “the knowledge and acceptance of your own mundane existence will actually free you to accomplish what you truly wish to accomplish, without judgment or lofty expectations.”

Conclusion

Lowering your goals to the point where they are already met is the definition of the word "mediocrity." 

But James, Manson, and de Botton are not advocating mediocrity.  They are preaching independence.

Then, your self-esteem will be created, maintained, and fueled entirely by you.  This will probably not reduce work and pain – but it could decimate your anxiety. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
De Botton, Alain.  Status Anxiety.  Pantheon Books, 2004.

James, William.  The Principles of Psychology.  H. Holt and Company, 1918.

Manson, Mark.  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life.  HarperOne, 2016.                                   
 

The Emotional Bank Account: Is A Relationship Just About Making More Deposits Than Withdrawals?
By Heath Shive

Imagine the perfect mate.  The two of you never argue, never fight, and never make fun of each other’s family. 

This is basically the plot line of the classic movie The Stepford Wives. 

But sweetness is not the same as flavor – which is why you don’t see a plain bowl of sugar on a dessert menu. Sometimes, it is the tartness (as in berries) or bitterness (as in chocolate) that makes something wonderful.

So what is the prime balance between sweet and sour? 

Or in this case, what is the ratio of positive to negative that is healthy for a relationship?

To the science!

The Emotional Bank Account

The idea of a perfect mate is either impossible or pathological.  Therefore, there has to be a mixture of positive and negative that psychologist John Gottman compared to a stable predator-prey dynamic – that “there is a balance between the necessary predator of negative affect and the necessary prey of positive affect.”

John Gottman is a noteworthy psychologist who specializes in couple dynamics.  He runs a couple’s therapy think-tank called the Gottman Insititute.  Blog articles for the institute regularly mention a concept called the Emotional Bank Account. 

The concept is rooted in an earlier study by psychologists Gary Birchler, Robert Weiss, and John P. Vincent. 

According to the Birchler team, nondistressed couples had a positive-to-negative (“pleases” to “displeases”) ratio of 29.6 to 1.  Distressed couples only had a ratio of 4.3 to 1.  

So you needed 29 pleasing moments to 1 negative moment to be a happy couple?

Gottman in one of his works reported that the ratio of positive to negative interaction during conflict resolution was 5 to 1, whereas the ratio was 0.8 to 1 in unstable marriages.

Conclusion

So 29 to 1 for "good," but at 5 to 1 the relationship needs help.    

So if the relationship is getting “rocky,” you will need to make positive deposits in your Emotional Bank Account - because a little negative feels like a big withdrawal.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Birchler, G.R., Weiss, R.L., & Vincent, J.P. (1975).  Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between martially distressed and nondistressed spouse and stranger dyads.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349-360.

Gottman, J.M., Coan, J., Carrere, S., & Swanson, C. (1998).  Predicting marital happiness and stability from newlywed interactions.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60 (1), 5-22.