 Source/Artist: Pixabay/komposita The Peak-End Rule: How to Conquer Any Bad Day (Or Even a Colonoscopy)
By Heath Shive It doesn't matter how a day starts, it only matters how the day ends. In an episode of The Office – entitled “Diversity Day” (Season 1, Ep. 2) – the character Jim is unable to close a very important sale because of his boss Michael Scott’s obnoxious handling of a sensitivity seminar. Jim loses his sale…to his office rival Dwight! It’s an awful defeat for Jim. But by the end of the working day, Pam (Jim's love interest) falls asleep on his shoulder. Jim is spellbound. Jim concludes to the camera that it was “not a bad day.” What does this have to do with bad days and colonoscopies? They all used the peak-end rule of psychology. To the science! The Peak-End Rule The peak-end rule was coined by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Barbara Fredrickson, and it is about how we summarize an experience. How we remember an experience boils down to 2 criteria: (1) how the experience feels at its peak, whether at its best or worst, and (2) how the experience ended. Barry Schwartz – author of the fantastic book The Paradox of Choice - cites a lab study where participants were asked to listen to two terribly loud noises. The first noise was awful, but lasted only 8 seconds. The second noise was the same as the first and also lasted 8 seconds…but it was followed by another 8 seconds of unpleasant noise that wasn’t as loud. The vast majority of the participants chose the second noise – despite the fact that it was unpleasant as the first, and also twice as long (16 seconds vs. 8 seconds). How does that make sense? They’re both terrible to hear, and the second noise was twice as long. But the participants preferred the second noise because of the “peak-end” rule. Both the first and second noise had the same “peak” of awfulness…but the second noise ended with a noise that wasn’t nearly as bad. Therefore, the second noise was judged better. A Not-So-Bad Colonoscopy A colonoscopy is a notoriously unpleasant experience. In the described study, two groups were given a colonoscopy. Daniel Kahneman, Joel Katz, and Donald Redelmeier performed lab study with colonoscopies to examine the peak-end rule. One group’s procedure was standard. The second group’s procedure was different. In the second group, after the colonoscopy was finished, the scope was left inside – unmoving – for 20 additional seconds. Unmoving, the probe was not as unpleasant as a moving probe. The second group rated their experience slightly better than the first group did. Both groups had the same bad colonoscopy, but the second group had a milder ending. Why We Need Fairy Tale Endings and Dessert The peak-end rule is basically telling us that it doesn’t matter how something starts, it’s the ending that is more important. Our brains aren’t rational computers. Our brains are slimy bags of instincts. So play to your instinct. There's a rule to life here. Jim’s day was "not a bad day” after Pam slept on his shoulder. If you squeeze an orange too hard, the juice turns bitter. Stay at a party too long, and you'll leave bored. We end a meal with a dessert, not...brussel sprouts. Keep in mind the happy ending! Having a bad day? Put something you love at the end of the day. A hot bath. A basket of chicken wings. A bowl of ice cream. Watch a movie with someone you care about or read a beautiful story to your children before they go to bed. And as you read to your kids, note that the story has a happy ending. We love happy endings. It’s our instinct. It’s called the peak-end rule. Sources: Kahneman, Daniel; Fredrickson, Barbara L.; Schreiber, Charles A.; Redelmeier, Donald A. (1993). "When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End". Psychological Science. 4(6): 401–405. Redelmeier, Donald A; Katz, Joel; Kahneman, Daniel (2003). "Memories of colonoscopy: a randomized trial". Pain. 104 (1-2): 187–194. Schwartz, Barry. The Paradox of Choice - Why More Is Less. New York: Harper Perennial, 2004.  Photo by miltonhuallpa95 (via Pixabay.com) - Accessed 26 Aug 2018 There’s Someone for Everyone: The Science!
By Heath Shive “Men are all ….” “Women are just …” These sentences never end well. When genders start going to war with each other, both men and women have a tendency to reduce each other to stereotypes. But here's the good news! Both men and women are (mostly) wrong! 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 predict who men would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical females. This list (abbreviated) is 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.” The majority (53%) of the study's women predicted 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 fling in option B. And surprisingly enough, 22% of the men wanted the "musical" lady option C! Women had a tendency to oversexualize men’s choices. What Men Think About Women In the study, men were asked to predict who women would choose for a short-term relationship from a list of 3 theoretical males. The list is 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.” Almost half of the study's men (49%) predicted that women would choose option B – the man in uniform. But instead, 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 reduce the opposite gender's decisions to stereotypes. But look at the numbers again. Even though the musical 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. 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. here to edit.  Photo by Michael Vincent Photography for Bride's Night Out, Inc. (accessed via Wikimedia Commons 28 May 2018) CC BY 3.0 The Emotional Risks of Bachelor/Bachelorette Parties: There’s Science For This?
By Heath Shive Researchers in 1989 (Kenrich et al.) performed a study with male and female college students. The students’ devotion to their respective romantic partners was measured. Then, one half of the students were shown opposite-sex nude centerfolds (from Playboy and Playgirl, etc). The other half were shown pictures of abstract art. Afterwards, the students’ attraction to their partners was measured again. The results? Afterwards, males exposed to attractive images of nude women felt that their female romantic partner was less sexually attractive. However, females exposed to attractive images of nude men (from Playgirl centerfolds) did not feel differently than before. So according to this study, men were more likely to discount their current partner in the presence of more attractive women. But the study’s women were more steadfast, despite the imagery of very attractive men. This study became a cornerstone for evolutionary psychology, frequently appearing in textbooks! By 2015, the paper had been cited 249 times on Google Scholar, and over 100 times on PsycINFO. But there’s another paper that begs to differ. Times Have Changed! In 2016, a different group of researchers (Balzarini et al., 2017) wanted to see if the results of the famous Kenrick study could be replicated. Turns out, the results were completely different! In the new study’s first 2 experiments, the subjects’ exposure to opposite-sex nude images had no effect on their attraction to their partner. This was true for both men and women! In the third experiment of this new study, the subjects again were exposed to pictures of the opposite-sex. But now these pictures were of attractive nudes or attractive non-nudes (with conservative clothes). The results? Afterwards, the subjects (both men and women) felt that their romantic partners were now more attractive! Why the Difference? There were some differences in the two studies (1989 vs. 2016). The original 1989 study involved young college students, but the 2016 study involved full-grown adults (average age, 35). The first study was published in 1989 – when attitudes about nudity and eroticism were more polarized between the two sexes. The new study was published in 2017 – with the Internet firmly part of modern life. Has the Internet made nudity so pervasive that it has become less shocking, and thus less powerful? Gender sensitivity has grown in both the private and professional sector since 1989. And a growing attitude of equality has allowed women to practice many of the habits previously accorded to men, including:
In other words, nudity is not as big a deal now. Nude imagery doesn't carry the same emotional power as before. It’s a different America. We’ve Grown Up? Balzarini’s study would seem to show that both American males and females can be more sexually mature now. Whether that maturity comes from personal growth (as we age) or cultural growth (like #MeToo), the improvement seems real. So how erotic should your bachelor/bachelorette party be? Depends. Can you handle it? How mature are you? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Balzarini, R.N., Dobson, K., Chin, K., & Campbell, L. (2017). Does exposure to erotica reduce attraction and love for romantic partners in men? Indpendent replications of Kenrich, Gutierres, and Goldberg (1989) Study 2. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70 (5), 191-197. Kenrick, D. T., Gutierres, S. E., & Goldberg, L. L. (1989). Influence of popular erotica on judgments of strangers and mates. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25 (2), 159-167. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031 (89)90010-3.  Photo by marybettiniblank via Pixabay.com Can Women Domesticate Men? The Science of the #MeToo Movement, Anthropology, and Female Bonobos
By Heath Shive The effect of the #MeToo Movement was immediate and powerful. Millions of women began to share their experiences of sexual harassment and assault on Twitter. From shared experience came shared encouragement, which progressed to shared empowerment. A lot of power. In time, evidence accumulated and the voices of women could destroy the success of very powerful men, from business leaders (Harvey Weinstein), to celebrities (Louis C. K. and Aziz Ansari), to legends (Bill Cosby), and members of Congress (Al Franken). Accusations alone were enough to ruin some careers. Young men were banished from college campuses on hearsay alone. In time, even some women – from female Harvard academics to a conservative Secretary of Education – began to warn of the dangers of abandoning due process. This is #MeToo in the short term. But what could the long term effects be? Could female empowerment change the evolution of human beings? To the science of anthropology! Girl Power? Thy Name Is Bonobo Chimpanzee and bonobo primates are genetically very similar. They are so similar that bonobos weren’t considered a separate species until well into the 20th century. Before that recognition, bonobo skulls were considered to be unusually large skulls of chimpanzee juveniles. But there are differences between the 2 species. Sexual dimorphism (the physical differences between males and females) is less pronounced in bonobos, with males barely bigger than females. Bonobo skulls are rounder. But the most pronounced difference is social. Bonobo primates are not nearly as ultraviolent as chimpanzees. And females are in charge! As you might have read in a previous blog article, infanticide and homicide rates among non-human primates seem almost sociopathic! Males dominate males, females dominate females. Toddlers are killed as potential threats to resources. But not the bonobos. So why the profound difference? Well, for starters, bonobo females dominate (or discipline, if you wish) the group. If a male becomes too pushy or aggressive, the female bonobo screams. All females in the area converge. Female bonobos look out for each other. The result is that aggressive males cannot breed. Aggression – at least on the male chromosome – is weeded out of the gene pool. Bonobo “sisterhood” domesticated the species. Domestication Destiny Dogs descended from wolves, but their differences are obvious. Dogs are more likely to have floppy ears, larger heads proportional to the body, less dramatic sexual dimorphism, and broader muzzles. In other words, dogs look more like wolf cubs than wolves! That’s what domestication does to an animal species. Sexual dimorphism is decreased. Heads and eyes are bigger in proportion to body. There are fewer violent tendencies and a greater tendency to play. Physically juvenile qualities were not bred into the dogs, rather these qualities “piggy-backed” on the genes that favored less reactive violence. Domesticating Men? Richard Wrangham has a book out that is very much in vogue right now entitled The Goodness Paradox. Wrangham – an anthropologist – noticed that human reactive violence (killing your neighbors) is very low, whereas our proactive violence (like war) is very high – the exact opposite of other species! Wrangham also noticed that – when compared to our mid-Pleistocene (“cave man”) ancestors – sexual dimorphism is less pronounced in humans today. In other words, Wrangham saw evidence of “domestication” in human beings. But how? Where were the “shepherds” of humanity? Wrangham in his book makes the point that as language evolved, so did communication. As humans could gossip, complain, and share experiences – especially about how they hated their oppressor – they could also strategize, plan, and judge. Wrangham says that language gave birth to cooperation – principally among the other males – and the ultra-violent that “crossed the line” were executed. Hence the beginning of social law – and the culling of the ultra-violent DNA out of the human gene pool. Can Women Do the Same? If women can censure aggressive men (“toxic masculinity”), than women can control which men mate, and therefore which genes continue to the next generation. Unlike many of my friends, I think that equality of the sexes has long since arrived in the United States - certainly the tools for equality are already here. What has been lacking is self-actualization. MeToo served as a kind of oriflamme to this cause. Hopefully it evolves from here – both in power and responsibility. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Wrangham, Richard. The Goodness Paradox: The Strange Relationship Between Virtue and Violence in Human Evolution. Pantheon Books, 2019.  Image by chayka1270 via Pixabay.com Red Republicans, Blue Democrats: Political Identity and the Psychology of Colors
By Heath Shive Part of the blessing of thinking is the curse of overthinking. Children see pretty colors. Adults…overthink this. We can see green in the leaves and grass. But green is symbolic too – of St Patrick’s Day, Irish Catholic politics, and of Islamic culture. Orange can remind us of citrus fruit…or Irish Protestant politics, Halloween, and the Orange Revolution. Somewhere along the way, Americans associated Republicans and Democrats with “red” states and “blue” states. This relatively recent color coding has been credited to the broadcast networks' election coverage during the 1980s, but was locked in during the 2000 Presidential election campaign. Is it that simple? Let's overthink this. To the science of primary colors and political identity! Embodied Cognition Embodied cognition is a concept in psychology which asserts that not only do humans ascribe a metaphor or belief to a sensation, but sensations imprint feelings onto the human mind. To influence a person’s sensory input is to influence their mental thinking. In 2005, psychologist Danny Hayes studied "trait ownership" in politics and discovered that people generally ascribe “hard” qualities to Republicans and “soft” qualities to Democrats. Do political views have a "hardness" or "softness"? And does the opposite happen, does hardness connect to a political idea? Three psychologists – Michael Slepian, Nicholas Rule, and Nalini Abady – published a paper in 2012 that revealed the power of hard and soft sensations on thinking. In one experiment, they had the participants squeeze either a soft ball or hard ball. While squeezing the balls, the participants had to look at four male and four female faces and guess each face’s political orientation. Those who squeezed a soft ball were more likely to guess Democrat; those who squeezed a hard ball were more likely to guess Republican. Embodied cognition! But how does color come into play? Red State, Blue State In a previous blog ("Devil in a Red Dress"), I wrote about the psychological connections between the color red and the human mind. Waitresses wearing red get tipped more. The color red can make women more attractive to men, and vice versa. But this blog is about politics, not sex appeal. Two researchers Anthony Little and Russell Hill experimented to see if the color red conveyed dominance even in inanimate objects. People were shown blue circles and red circles. Then they were asked which circle seemed more dominant. The participants judged the red circle more dominant. Circles are not famous for dominance. And no state looks red or blue from outer space. But still, we associate certain colors with certain feelings, and vice versa. Conclusion So let’s combine the thoughts of the above studies. Republicans are perceived to have more hard-line political views. Hardness communicates assertion, strength, and power. People can be forgiven if they naturally associate the color red with Republicans. What are the stereotypical associations with the color blue? Peace, acceptance, and higher thought. People can be forgiven if they naturally associate blue with Democrats. The funny thing is that Republicans for most of the 20th century were associated with the color blue! So what is different now in the psychology of the political landscape? LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: D. Hayes (2005). Candidate qualities through a partisan lens: a theory of trait ownership. American Journal of Political Science, 49 (4), 908-23. A. C. Little and R. A. Hill (2007). Attribution to red suggests special role in dominance signaling. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 5 (1-4), 161-68. M. L. Slepian, N. O. Rule, and N. Ambady (2012). Proprioception and person perception: Politicians and professors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39 (12), 1621-28. For more about embodied cognition, see: Lobel, Thalma. Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence. Atria Books, 2014.  Picture by rigodiaz from Pixabay.com Devil in a Red Dress: How Color Affects Men, Women, and Our Sex Drives
By Heath Shive Did you know that men tip waitresses more when the women wear red? Psychologist Nicolas Gueguen published a paper on this little color insight. But it doesn’t stop there. The story goes that matadors use red capes because the color provokes the bulls, and baboons flash a red butt to signal status. Does red bring out the animal…in you? This is called embodied cognition, and psychologist Thalma Lobel has written an entire book about it called Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence – which is where I found following studies. To the science! Are Men Suckers for Red? Researchers Andrew Elliot and Daniela Niesta published a study in 2008. They showed 2 groups of men a black-and-white photo of a young woman for about 5 seconds. Both groups of men saw the same woman - but half of the men saw on the picture with a red background and the other half saw the picture on a white background. The men were then asked to rate the woman’s attractiveness on a scale of 1 to 9. The men who saw the woman on a red background rated her as more attractive than the men who saw the white background. Typical oversexed men, right? But... Are Women Suckers for Red Too? In 2010, researchers (again including Elliot and Niesta) performed a similar experiment on women. Women were shown the picture of a man. But the women either saw the picture with a red, white or gray background. As expected, women who saw the picture of the man with a red background rated him as more attractive and more desirable than the women who saw the other backgrounds. Red has a measurable effect on humans. But don’t get carried away, guys. Just because an effect is measurable does not mean it is of primary significance. Though women seem to succeed with wearing red dresses, there’s a reason men don’t wear red suits, looking like cartoonish villains. But observe the color of a politician’s tie, a rich man’s car, or even a stop sign. Red gets our attention. Conclusion Psychology frequently tells us that our instincts and experiences (our insides) affect our actions in the outside world. But studies can also show that the outside world (its colors, smells, sounds, and textures) affect our inner selves and thinking too. Whether we admit it or not, we are all are sensual creatures. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: A. J. Elliot and D. Niesta (2008). Romantic red: Red enhances men’s attraction to women. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (5), 1150-1164. A.J. Elliot, D. Niesta Kayser, T. Greitenmeyer, S. Lichtensfeld, R. H. Gramzow, M. A. Maier, and H. Liu (2010). Red, rank, and romance in women viewing men. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139 (3), 399-417. Lobel, Thalma. Sensation: The New Science of Physical Intelligence. Atria Books, 2014. N. Gueguen and C Jacob (2012). Clothing color and tipping: Gentlemen patrons give more tips to waitresses with red clothes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, April 18, 2012.  Image by MoteOo, accessed via Pixabay.com Bad Choices, Bad Turns, Bad Relationships: The Psychology of Stubborn
By Heath Shive Obstinate people think that it is a virtue to be stubborn. Why is it hard for us to change our minds, our jobs, our relationships, or our lives? There is no inherent virtue in inflexibility. After all, the chair that I sit on is unchanging – but my chair is neither faithful nor wise. But, scientifically, all humans might be programmed to be a little stubborn. Why? To the science! My Mug, My Chocolate, My Choice? In a 1989 paper, economist Jack Knetsch asked one group of students to choose between a coffee mug and a chocolate bar. Of these students, 44% wanted the chocolate bar, 56% wanted mug. Knetsch gave a second group only coffee mugs – but they could exchange for chocolate later, if they wanted. Knetsch gave a third group nothing but chocolate bars – but they could exchange for mugs later, if they wanted. One would expect that 44% of the students would have traded mugs for chocolate, and that 56% would have traded chocolate for mugs, right? No! Only about 10% of the students wanted to exchange! Knetsch’s experiment is used to demonstrate the endowment effect – that a person ascribes more value to something when he owns it. But psychologist Richard Thaler interpreted the experiment differently in his book Nudge. Thaler thought the experiment demonstrated “choice inertia” – that we do not like to change our minds. We have an instinct to be stubborn. Stubborn In The Face of Facts Social psychologists M. Deutsch and H. Gerard performed a study on 3 different groups of college students. The students had to estimate the lengths of some lines. One group guessed mentally without revealing their estimate. Another group had to write down their estimates, sign the paper, and hand these papers to the experimenter. All students could change their mind as new evidence was introduced. The students that only mentally guessed were the most likely to change their minds. But the students that wrote, singed, announced their guess were the least likely to change their decision. The more effort we put into a decision, the more stubborn we become. Betting On the Wrong Horse Back in the 1960s, psychologists R. E. Knox and J. A. Inkster performed a study at a horse track. Knox and Inkster discovered that gamblers were more confident about their bet after they made their gamble. There was no change in facts. The horses, the track, and the weather were all the same. But 30 seconds after they made their bet, they were more confident of winning. Humans can delude themselves about the facts, if it reinforces their earlier decision. To be stubborn is to be deluded. Conclusion Why are we pre-disposed to stick to our choices? There is something called prospect theory, which – and this is my translation – means that we make choices based on imagined results, rather than factual probability. Nobody gains skill, romance, or achievement after only one attempt. We have to try and try again – imagining that someday we will win or that we will be proven right. This is perseverance - and it might be a human instinct. So what is the difference between stubborn and perseverance? We are stubborn when we pervert our innate optimism to serve our egos, in spite of the facts and results. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Deutsch, M., and H. B. Gerard. “A Study of Normative and Informational Social Influences upon Individual Judgment.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51 (1955): 629-36. Knetsch, Jack L., "The Endowment Effect and Evidence of Nonreversible Indifference Curves," American Economic Review, 1989, 79, 1277-1284. Knox, R. E., and J. A. Inkster. “Postdecisional Dissonance at Post Time.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(1968): 319-323. Thaler, Ricard. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 2008.  Picture by Julia_Nova via Pixabay.com Would You Pass the Marshmallow Test? Success and Delayed Gratification
By Heath Shive There are a lot of books and commercials and gurus telling us that we need to be "happy." They tell us how to be happy, how to quest for happiness, how to attain happiness, and what is wrong with us if we are not "happy." They seem to think that the purpose of life is to grab hold of happiness and God help you if you ever let go. But what if happiness wasn't the point? What if happiness was only at the end of hard work - similar to how dessert was at the end of a meal? And speaking of desserts, do you like marshmallows? Scientists at Stanford University once used marshmallows to test the willpower of children. And then the children grew up. What did they find? To the science! The Marshmallow Test In the 1960s, the psychologist Walter Mischel devised "the marshmallow test" to measure the willpower of children. Mischel and other psychologists at Stanford University presented the children with a challenge: they could either eat a marshmallow now, or wait 15 minutes and eat 2 marshmallows. Only a third of the kids were able to resist the temptation. This in itself isn't all that weird. But Mischel and the other psychologists found the same children years later and discovered something peculiar. The kids who showed self-control grew up to be more accomplished both socially and academically. On the average, the kids had higher SAT scores, greater educational attainment, and a lower body mass index. Is there a correlation between success and delayed gratification? Conclusion There was a book - a bestseller 20 years ago - entitled The Millionaire Next Door. The authors Thomas J. Stanley and William D. Danko found that the majority of millionaires in their study didn't become rich by being doctors, lawyers, and CEOs. The majority of millionaires lived in modest houses and had ordinary careers. The millionaires "next door" became wealthy by a lifetime of frugality and savings. For a middle-class American, it would take 40 years of chronic investment to be a millionaire...but that's precisely how most millionaires acquired their wealth! Not glamorous. Just delayed. Success by constant willpower and self-discipline. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Mischel, Walter; Ebbesen, Ebbe B.; Raskoff Zeiss, Antonette (1972). "Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 21 (2): 204–218. Stanley, Thomas J. & William D. Danko. The Millionaire Next Door: The Surprising Secrets of America's Wealthy. Longstreet Press, 1996.  Photo by DzeeShah (via Pixabay.com) Mom Lied! Looks Do Matter! The Science of Superficial Judgments
By Heath Shive The great entrepreneur Helena Rubinstein once said, “There are no ugly women, only lazy ones.” Rubinstein’s words apply to men as well. Not all of us are born with the DNA of a bikini model or Adonis, but all of us can work at improving our appearance. Because all of us will be judged on our appearance. I read Rubinstein’s quote in a book by Neil Strauss, author of the best-seller The Game – a book about the world of pick-up artists. Originally, Strauss had been a short, out of shape guy with thinning hair and bad clothes. But Strauss exercised, lost weight, shaved his head for a bolder look, grew a beard to hide his weak chin, and bought trendier clothes. And his love life improved. Why? To the science of superficial judgments! The Great Fudge-Poo Experiment of 1986? Back in 1986, psychologists Paul Rozin, Linda Millman, and Carol Nemeroff published a hilarious series of experiments on the laws of contagion and laws of similarity. In one experiment, subjects were offered a piece of high-quality square-shaped fudge. The subjects ate the piece and rated their desire to eat another piece. Then two additional pieces of the same fudge were presented – one fudge piece was shaped like a muffin and the other shaped like dog poop. The experimenter truthfully told the subjects that the fudge was exactly the same. The subjects rated their desire to eat more of each shape (muffin-shape first, then dog feces), indicated the one they preferred, and were then asked to take a bite from the preferred piece. The subjects rated their preference on a 200-point scale. A -100 was to describe the worst possible experience, 0 was neutral, and +100 was highest (most pleasurable) rating. The subjects rated the poop-shaped fudge as 47 points worse than the original square fudge…even though it was the same fudge! There were more experiments in this study – which should be used in every Psych 101 course – but Rozin, Millman, and Nemeroff made their point. Humans have an instinct to judge everything based on appearances. Can any of us change our instincts? Conclusion My previous blog – The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit – discussed the amazing power of a business suit to enhance the social prestige of young black men on the streets of Chicago. In another blog – The Science of Cars and Sex Appeal – a scientific study demonstrated how a sports car can enhance a man’s sex appeal to women. Appearances matter. Appearances do not change your morality, your ability, your kindness, or your work ethic. Appearances do change how people treat you. That’s just reality. And since we live on world surrounded by 7 billion other people – all of whom will judge us at first based on what we look like – it behooves us to take our appearance seriously. We may not be able to change our instincts. However, we could try to master them to our advantage. LIKE SCHOLAFOX 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.  Photo by adabara (via Pixabay.com) The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit: The Primary Prejudice Is About Money?
By Heath Shive In 2012, Trayvon Martin – a young black man – was wearing a hoodie as he walked home. George Zimmerman thought he looked suspicious, so he accosted, fought, and fatally shot Martin. Would Martin be alive today if…he had worn a suit? In 2014, Eric Garner was strangled fatally when police arrested him for allegedly selling “loosies” on the street. Would Garner still be alive if he had been wearing a suit? Both of these cases made national headlines with a media spotlight on race relations in America. But was racism the real prejudice? Justine Damond was shot and killed by a rookie police officer in Minneapolis in 2017. But, she was white, a woman, unarmed, and in an affluent neighborhood! Damond was wearing pajamas at the time of her shooting. Would she be alive today if…she had been wearing a pantsuit? To the science of a young black man in a suit! The Chicago Study In Chicago, researchers Uri Gneezy, John List, and Michael K. Price created an experiment. In the experiment, a tester (working for the scientists) would walk around in Chicago and ask people for directions to a local landmark. The study would measure 2 things: whether the people responded to the question, and how long they talked to the tester. There were 40 testers consisting of 8 groups of 5 each, divided by race (white and black), age (20 and 50), and gender (male and female). There were a total of 3,000 respondents and here are the results.
A 20-year old white female had the highest response rate and response time. A 20-year old black male had the lowest response rate and time. True to stereotype, right? But did you notice something non-stereotypical?
The prejudice in action was not simply about race. So the researchers went one step farther. The Science of a Young Black Man in a Suit The researchers sent the 20-year black male testers back into the streets for another test run. But this time, they didn’t wear hoodies. The young black men wore…business suits. The results? In the words of Uri Gneezy and John List in their book The Why Axis: “Indeed, this time, the young black men were treated quite well and received the same quality information the young women had received.” The young black men’s response rates and times roughly equaled the highest rates of the entire study! All it took was a business suit! Conclusion Uri Gneezy and John List include this study – among many others – in their incredible book The Why Axis. The book is about discrimination in all its economic aspects. And some of their findings are not only relevant, but surprising as well. Really, what is a suit? A suit means a "successful" job at a "successful" wage. It means money. A suit carries a prejudice - it creates a standard appearance for success. Without a suit, how important can you be? We talk about race a lot in this country, but do we dare to ask: what were they wearing? Is the primary prejudice in this country an economic one? Clothes don’t make the man. But clothes do change our perception. LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK! Sources: Gneezy, Uri, & John List. The Why Axis: Hidden Motives and the Undiscovered Economics of Everyday Life. PublicAffairs, 2013. |
AuthorHello! My name is Heath Shive, content manager at ScholarFox. I'll be the author of most of the blog posts. I'm a former geologist and currently a freelance writer. The world is complex and seemingly crazy. Good! Because when you love to learn, you'll never be bored. Archives
June 2019
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed