More than an Easter Bunny: 5 Famous Rabbits From Around the World
By Heath Shive

1)  Why do we have an Easter Bunny?  

The use of an Easter bunny was formerly credited to the Saxon goddess of spring, Eostre.  But the only surviving mention of this goddess is by the medieval historian the Venerable Bede - who doesn't associate a rabbit with her at all! 

Ancient and medieval cultures around the world associated rabbits with springtime.  Rabbits begin their mating season as early as February and continue to September.  The rabbits would chase each other in courtship which - when combined with their large litter sizes - made rabbits a symbol of the growing fertility of the spring season. 

The pagan symbolism of the rabbit was vouchsafed by the early Christian church. 

But, the use of a rabbit who hides colored eggs for Easter is generally credited to the German Lutherans.  Early Protestants - unlike old-school Catholics - didn't abstain from eating eggs during Lent. 

Eggs were colored as apropos for the season.  But while many ancient cultures decorated their eggs, it was the Germans who created the Osterhase, or what we call the Easter Bunny, a rabbit who brings colored eggs for children.  The tradition was brought to America by German immigrants. 

Sounds crazy?  But rabbits are often thought of as crazy - which is why the British have an expression...

2) ...Mad as a March hare.  Rabbits have an infamous fecundity - producing large litters after relatively short gestation periods.  This hyperactive fertility can cause males to act strangely - running in circles and hopping vertically.  Males can get too aggressive in the their courtship - which is why females often fight to protect themselves.  A lawn full of fighting  fertile rabbits?  Rabbits would look crazy, hence "mad as a March hare." 

The most famous March Hare is the character in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. 

Many cultures didn't just think a rabbit was "mad," but instead was...

3) ...a masterful trickster.  

The rabbit trickster is very common in Northern Native cultures, but he has a different name wherever you go.  The rabbit trickster was called Glosscap by Eastern Native nations and Wisakedjak by the Cree farther west.  

Nanabozho was a trickster spirit, a primordial deity born at the beginning of time.  He was also a lying, stealing, and manipulative con-man too.  Nanabozho could take many forms, but was a rabbit most frequently.
​
But the trickster rabbit was also famous in western and southern African cultures!  The people of Senegal called him Leuk. 

4) But we know him better as Br'er Rabbit, or Brother Rabbit.  

Br'er Rabbit is the star of many of the Uncle Remus stories of the Old South.  He outwits kings and peasants and every predator in the woods with his wits alone.  Br'er Rabbit - like all tricksters - is morally ambiguous.  He can be larcenous or heroic.  But he always proves that even the physically small and weak can win - provided they have the wits. 

Br'er Rabbit has fallen into disfavor in the current political climate, but...

5)...the trickster rabbit survives today as Bugs Bunny!  

Bugs Bunny is the premier character of the Warner Brothers cartoon classics.  Bugs is flippant, insouciant, and confident.  Bugs is shown to be able to outsmart any of his antagonists - all of whom are trying to do Bugs harm.  But while talking with a Brooklyn accent, and starting his repartee with a "What's up, doc?", Bugs always proves his nonchalant superiority and becomes the very model of cartoon "cool." 

According to Guinness World Records, Bugs Bunny is the 9th most portrayed film personality in the world!  Bugs even has his own star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!      

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.

The First Cherry Blossoms of Washington D.C...Were Burned to Protect America from Foreign Invasion?
By Heath Shive

The famous cherry trees of Washington, D.C., will begin blooming on March 20, peaking on April 4th.  

The trees are beautiful, iconic, and worthy of an American's bucket list.

And the first batch was destroyed to protect America from foreign invaders. 

Why?

To the history!

The Food Explorer David Fairchild

In the later 1800s, the U.S. adopted a largely unregulated gold standard which – when combined with mass production – created what economists called “the Long Depression.”

Between 1870 and 1895, the price for a bushel of corn dropped from 43 cents to 30 cents.  A bushel of wheat worth $1.06 in 1870 had lost almost 40 percent of its value by 1900.  
 
Realizing that American farmers needed more variety than just corn and wheat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sent out "food explorer" David Fairchild to gather seeds and plantings from around the world. 

Fairchild is credited with introducing nectarines, avocadoes, mangoes, soybeans, and kale to the U.S.  

But Fairchild’s wife Marian loved Japanese flowering cherry trees, and when the Fairchilds finally bought their first home outside D.C. in 1906, Marian ordered over 100 flowering cherry trees. 

The Fairchild’s lawn become famous in the capital.

Flower Power

Then-president William Howard Taft had also been to Japan and had loved their flowering cherry trees. But here’s the thing: mainstream America was xenophobic just then.  There had been a general ban on all Asian immigrants – especially Chinese – for decades.  By 1907, Japanese and Korean immigrants in California were forced into segregated neighborhoods. 

And it wasn’t good to make Japan mad.  Japan was a rising world power.  From 1895 to 1905, Japan had successfully won wars against China and Russia. 

Planting beautiful Japanese flowering cherry trees in America's capital carried political importance.   

So 300 flowering cherry trees were shipped from Tokyo to Washington, D.C.

There was just one problem.  Or rather, thousands of tiny problems.
 
The Fruit Man vs. the Bug Man

Charles Marlatt was the USDA’s chief entomologist.  When California’s crops were being destroyed by the San Jose scale (an invasive insect), it was Marlatt who had saved the day by bringing back the scale’s natural predator - ladybugs. 

Yes, Charles Marlatt was the man who introduced ladybugs to the United States!  But during the trip to Asia, Marlatt's wife contracted disease and died.  

Foreign crops were Fairchild's fame, but Marlatt's pain. 

Marlatt inspected the imported cherry trees and found them rife with pestilence: root gall, 2 kinds of scale bugs, a new species of borer, and 6 more dangerous insect species. 

Taft had no choice but to burn the entire lot of trees, which newspapers made into a public spectacle.   

Taft and the diplomatic corps were afraid of Japan’s reaction, but Japan expressed only shame – shame that they had given so inferior a gift. 

Conclusion

New trees were sent, and these trees passed even Marlatt’s scrutiny.

And on March 27, 1912, First Lady Helen Taft planted the first tree and the Japanese ambassador’s wife planted the second tree. 

A century later, the trees still bloom, and national news networks use the blossoming as a kind of harbinger of spring.

In fact, Americans love the trees so much, that no one cares that these trees don’t make cherries.

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Stone, Daniel.  The Food Explorer: The True Adventures of the Globe-Trotting Botanist Who Transformed What America Eats. Dutton, 2018.

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.     

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.   

The Wedding Ring Effect: The Science of “You Ain’t Taking My Man!”
By Heath Shive

Among mammals, males battle each other for access to females.  Stallions battle for a herd, lions battle for control of the pride, and bucks charge each other for does.

Obviously men compete with each other for prized women – even to the point of violence. 

It is just as obvious – if often unstated – that women compete with each other for prized men.

And some women fight dirty.  There is cheating - which is a temporary sexual affair.  But there is also mate poaching - strategic acquisition of another woman's man.

Turns out, it might have something to do with what is called “the wedding ring effect.”

A married woman’s greatest competition is a single woman.

Don’t believe me?

To the science!

Mate Poaching Psychology

Psychologists Jessica Parker and Melissa Burkley peformed a study on the impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching.  

In their study, Parker and Burkley gathered 184 participants, both male and female, roughly half of whom were “attached.”  One male face and one female face were chosen in pre-testing as “moderately attractive.”  The women were shown the male face, and men were shown the female face. 

Participants were randomly assigned to read that the target face was either single or in a current romantic relationship.  The participants then rated the desirability of the person. 

The results? 

Whether the woman was single or attached, single men showed no difference in their attraction,  

But single women showed a considerably greater interest in the target when he was attached! 

Unlike single women, attached women were not more attracted to the attached man compared to the single man.

Conclusion

The researchers concluded that “single women were more interested in poaching an attached man rather than pursuing a single man.”

And that is the wedding ring effect!

Oddly enough, that means the single women in the study were more interested in the man that was technically less available.

In a way, it makes sense.  If a woman is looking for commitment, attached men have already proven themselves capable.  From an amoral standpoint, why should a single woman deal with an untested man when there is a proven man right there…with another woman?

The writer Tucker Max – and I know he is a polarizing figure – wrote something about this in his book Mate:  “Sluts” aren’t derogated because women are uncomfortable with their sexuality; it’s because they’re experts at mate poaching, which is a very real threat to most women.

Men aren't the only insecure mates in the world.  Attached women also have to look over their shoulders. 

That might be why women always notice dress, styles, and clothing on other women. 

Have you ever noticed that the Other Woman always has longer hair?

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Parker, Jessica, and Melissa Burkley.  Who’s chasing whom?  The impact of gender and relationship status on mate poaching.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (4) 2009, 1016-1019   

A Woman Is the Best Wingman (2): Your Desirability Is Decreed by Committee?
By Heath Shive

What did Dean Martin sing? 

You’re nobody till somebody loves you…

We tend to think of the heart as sacred – or fickle – but often the heart is really just a conformist. 

Romantic desire does not originate solely from inside us – but rather there are external cultural influences on who we want as well. 

In the last blog, the studies indicated that animals don’t just rely on their instincts to find a mate.  Animals also use social cues (external advice) to find out who is the best choice. 

Are humans any different?

To the science!

Desirability by Social Decree

In an article in Scientific Reports – an online super-journal of science – a team of researchers experimented on the effect of social cues on what a group of women found attractive.

It was a small study, involving 49 female subjects.  They were presented with pictures of men’s faces…and pictures of men’s hands, and of abstract art too. 

Faces are a typical reference for desire.  The hand-pictures were a way of exploring non-facial attractiveness.  The abstract art was used to measure attraction outside the sexual domain (unless that’s your thing?).

First, the subjects were asked to rate the attractiveness of the picture.  Then – a short while later – subjects were asked to rate the picture again, but they were also shown the average rating of all the other participants in real time. 

Now the subjects knew what the group thought!

The results of the second rating?

On average, a participant changed their initial rating of the facial pictures by 13% towards the group rating! 

They moved in the direction of the group decree.

Conclusion

It should be noted that the subjects changed their initial ratings on the face-pictures and hand-pictures and abstract art by roughly the same amount (13% for hands, 14% for abstract art).

The study was really a reflection of the human tendency to conform.  People don’t just conform using their clothing styles or jargon.  Our ideas and beliefs conform as well. 

As noted in the previous blog, we don’t conform to just any old group. 

We conform to our specific group – whichever group we identify with. 

Conservative or liberal?  Religious or agnostic?  Old or young?  Male or female?  Professional versus blue-collar?

Group identity offers many advantages – networking, community resources, solidarity, protection, and support.  The group also controls how we will be measured too.

So we come back to same old conclusion as last week.  Guys, hang out with more women - because other women will notice.  And ladies, hang out with men to be seen as more approachable and social.

Who knows?  We might just learn to talk to each other!

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources:
Street, Sally E, Thomas J.H. Morgan, Alex Thornton, Gillian R. Brown, Kevin N. Laland & Catharine P. Cross.  Human mate-choice copying is domain general social learning.  Scientific Reports 8, 1715 (2018) – Accessed online 3 Feb 2019

​ A Woman Is the Best Wingman: The Science of Fish Mating...and Modern Dating?  
By Heath Shive

When I was back in high school, there was a short list of ladies that all the guys thought were "hot."

I remember that - a few years later - I was looking at the same old high school yearbook and thought...differently. 

How could I find a woman desirable in one context, but - a relatively short time later - find the same woman remarkably less attractive. 

There are whole episodes of TV dedicated to this premise - most notably by Barney Stinson's "cheerleader effect" used in How I Met Your Mother (Season 4, episode 7).    

Of course, there is a science to this too.  

Sound fishy?  It will.  

To the science!  

The Birds and the Bees…and Fish?

There is not a one-to-one correlation in the behavior between humans and animals.  For example, animals lack our abstract conceptions, like morality, music, honor, or sympathy. 

But the amazing (or disconcerting) thing is how similarly humans and animals do act - especially in primal activities, like mating.

In 1992, the biologists Lee Dugatkin and Jean Godin made a study – which is pretty well-known in academia – involving the mating behavior of guppies.  They discovered that small females by themselves will choose mates based on their instincts. 

But in a group, something else happens. 

Large female guppies have rank in the group.  Large size is a sign of longevity, and therefore a sign of evolutionary success.  Small females will likely abandon their first mating choice – to pursue the males that large females pursue. 

Dugatkin and Godin believed that a female’s choice of mate wasn’t just driven by individual genetics, but also by cultural cues. 

In 2002, two biological researchers named Klaudia Witte and Michael Ryan performed another similar study using sailfin molly fish.  In this study, they discovered that a male fish will choose a female who is already accompanied by a male, rather than pursue a lone female.  And a female molly fish will choose a male fish who is already accompanied by a female. 

The fish only pursued mates that others were pursuing!

Your reference group determines your social value, and therefore it determines your options.   
 
How Does This Help Me?

It is easier to look at animal studies and stay objective.  I have found that it is when we mention human studies that listeners can become defensive.  So...just so you know, I will be using human studies on this same subject soon.  I am trying to warm you up to the idea. 

But the idea is obvious.  You are judged by others around you.  Some (and only some, not all) of those judgments carry weight - but the only important and personal judgments are those made by your own reference group, your culture. 

There are many cultures and sub-cultures in humanity.  But the key here is your culture. 

Your reference group (culture) determines your social value.  Whoever has rank in your reference group will determine your own social value…and influence your mate selection.  That’s why there are generalized dating sites (e.g. Match.com), but there are also dating sites geared specifically towards specific sub-groupings – e.g., Jewish, Christian, rural, professional, racial, etc. 

But the studies show us something more too: We want what others have! 

So, ladies, you can bring male dates to weddings, office parties, and bars that you have no romantic/sexual interest in.  The male escort not only gives you external validation, it improves your perceived social value and can cultivate new male interest, even jealousy.  Next time you flirt, your attention will have more social value.  Next time you ask a man out, your regard will have more power.   

Guys, next time do not go out with your male buddies.  Find a woman to go out with you instead - not as a romantic target per se, but as a way to enhance your social value. If she’s just a friend, that’s fine.  Her presence still enhances your value.  The more attractive this woman is, the more other women will notice – and increase your social value. 

That’s why this is a frequent trope in TV and movies.  It’s based on reality – our culture and system of social values. 

LIKE SCHOLARFOX ON FACEBOOK!

Sources: 

Strauss, Neil.  The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pick-Up Artists.  Regan Books, 2005.

Dugatkin, L. A. & Godin, J.-G. J. 1992. Reversal of female mate choice by copying in the guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 249, 179–184

 Witte, Klaudia and Michael J. Ryan.  2002.  Mate choice copying in the sailfin molly, Poecilia latipinna in the wild. Animal Behaviour, 2002, 63, 943–949

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.