Andrew Patrick

Why most suicide bombers are Muslim, beautiful people have more daughters, humans are naturally polygamous, sexual harassment isn’t sexist, and blonds are more attractive.

When I was an undergraduate, my first mentor was an expert on the psychology of categorization — how we make sense of the world by deciding what belongs with what. This professor was the most eccentric one I had in a long university career, and probably the most brilliant. One of his many lines, which I will never forget, was: “stereotypes develop for a reason”.

A stereotype is a generalization or commonly-held belief about a group of people, and stereotypes are often considered to be politically incorrect. But, in the absence of any information about a particular individual, information about a stereotype for the group is often quite valuable. Just as in statistics, in the absence of specific information about all the data, information about central tendency and variance can be very useful. Stereotype are not always negative, although we tend to only use the word when referring to negative characteristics

By rejecting stereotypes because they are often used negatively, we are forgetting the valuable role that they can play in making sense of the world. An older Psychology Today article from 2007 reviews some of the stereotypes we have about human behavior, and the truth behind them.

John Watson, the founder of the behaviorism movement in Psychology, wanted to demonstrated that seemingly primitive emotions like fear were, in fact, learned and not instinctual. So he prepared a demonstration where a small child, known as Little Albert, was exposed to a number of small animals.

Albert showed no fear, but then Watson made a loud noise, a clang that Albert did fear, whenever Albert was shown the white rat. Soon enough, Albert was upset whenever he was shown the white rat, even without the clang. Watson argued that this was a demonstration of the importance of learning and the environment in child development, a lesson that changed developmental theory for years to come.

But what happened to Little Albert? Was he afraid of white rats, and other furry creatures, for the rest of his life? Was he forever traumatized by the simple experiment?

This article reports on a detective story to find Little Albert.

Little Albert, lost and found

One of the most famous and most mythologised studies in psychology concerns John Watson’s experiment to condition ‘Little Albert’ to be afraid of a white rat. ‘Little Albert’ and his mother moved away afterwards and no-one knew what happened to him, leading to one of the most enduring mysteries in psychology. Finally, it seems, his identity has been discovered.

Sexual activities at work have become a modern taboo. Everything from sexual jokes and innuendo to overt touching and sex acts have become absolutely forbidden in the workplace. Some sexual behaviors (jokes, banter, flirting) might be seen as innocent and a natural part of being human, but the current trend is one of zero tolerance justified by a perceived need to protect everyone, most especially women. A recent study by Jennifer Berdahl (U Toronto) and Karl Aquino (U British Columbia) asked employees what they thought about sexual behaviors at work to see if they really are offensive and harmful, or if the negative side has been exaggerated. Berdahl and Aquino surveyed over 1200 people working in manufacturing plants, community service centers, and a large university.

In a study reported in a recent issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, the researchers measured the frequency that workers experienced various kinds of sexual behaviors, how they were perceived (on scales ranging from very negative to very positive), and who were the actors (men or women). They also measured various aspects of happiness and well-being, including feelings of hope, anxiety, and depression, feeling valued at work, tendencies to withdraw from work (avoiding tasks, thinking of quitting), and self-reported use of alcohol and drugs.

The results showed that exposure to sexual activities at work was common, with ambient behaviors (sexual materials, jokes, discussions) being more frequent than direct behaviors (sexual attention or advances, touching, exposure of private body parts). In the first study 58% of the employees reported experiencing some kind of sexual behavior at work in the past two years, while a second study found that 40% of those workers reported experiencing sexual behavior in the past year. Some of the workers (mostly men) enjoyed the sexual behavior, and about 25% of the workers describing it as fun and harmless, while many others found the activities to be benign. Perhaps not surprisingly, men gave strong positive ratings to direct sexual behaviors conducted by women, and negative ratings when they came from other men. Women gave negative ratings to direct sexual behaviors originating from men or women. Taken together, the results show that sexual behaviors at work may not always be perceived as offensive and harmful.

When looking at measures of psychological and workplace well-being, however, there was consistent evidence of harmful effects of sexual behaviors at work. The more frequently an employee experienced sexual behaviors, the more often they reported being withdrawn from work, regardless of whether they reported positive or negative attitudes towards such behavior. Also, the more frequently workers experienced sexual behaviors at work, the worse off they were on measures of psychological well-being and depression, the less they felt valued at work, and the more frequently they reported using drugs and alcohol. There was no evidence of any positive effects of sexual behavior at work on individual workers’ happiness, well-being, or a happy work life.

The authors draw the following conclusions:

“Our results show that sexual behavior at work is enjoyed by some women and by many men but that it is generally associated with negative work-related and psychological outcomes, regardless of whether it is enjoyed or disliked.”
…
“Despite the pleasure it brings to some, these data suggest it is wise to avoid sharing sexual jokes and materials and engaging in sexual discussions and interactions with coworkers, lest these behaviors offer no pleasure to many and work and psychological harm to all.”

There are problems with this study, of course. There may have been a perceived desirability biases when the questions were answered, with men exaggerating their enjoyment of sexual behaviors and women exaggerating their dislike. It is also possible that another factor, such as professionalism at work, could be affecting these results – sexual behavior at work may be related to unprofessionalism, and this is real cause of the poor personal and work-related outcomes. And, as always, correlations do not prove causation: we cannot be sure if the sexual behaviors cause the negative personal and work outcomes, of if these factors cause the sexual behaviors. It is possible that people in certain work environments engage in more sexual behaviors because they tend to be withdrawn, depressed, and feel under-valued.

Berdahl, J., & Aquino, K. (2009). Sexual behavior at work: Fun or folly? Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (1), 34-47 DOI: 10.1037/a0012981 Available from http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/facBios/file/Berdahl%20&%20Aquino%20JAP%202009.pdf

An interesting article from Psychology Today reporting on survey research in the US. It seems that when people were asked questions like “I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group”, the most detested group were atheists. The were consistently rated lower than various religious groups (e.g., muslims, Christians, Jews) and racial groups (e.g., Hispanics, Asians).

Atheists Are the Most Mistrusted Group: They Are Evil and Immoral!

Suppose that we had an extraordinarily accomplished would-be President who proclaimed her atheism. Let us assume that this person is a great orator; a righteous person with great personal integrity; a speaker of four languages; and a Nobel laureate. If she were to declare that she does not believe in the existence of a “celestial dictator” (to borrow the term from the remarkable Christopher Hitchens), she would be automatically deemed unfit to serve in political office and/or to date your son.

It well known that smarter people tend to do better in life, but what about attractive people or self-confident people? With today’s emphasis on looks, it might be that attractive people get ahead. And what role does self-confidence play?

A recent report by Timothy Judge, Charlice Hurst, and Lauren Simon from the University of Florida was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. The researchers questioned 191 adults in the Boston area who were taking part in a long-term, longitudinal study. The study measured a number of characteristics including income (which was used as a measure of life success), intelligence (9 different IQ tests), education, attractiveness (based on ratings on facial photographs), and self-evaluations of life satisfaction (e.g., “I am pleased with how my life has turned out so far.”). Controlling for age, race, and gender, the study used covariance structural models to study direct and indirect effects on income.

Not surprisingly, intelligence was positively related to income, which was used as the measure of life success. Income was also strongly related to the amount of education a person completes. Attractiveness was also positively related to income, but mostly because of mediating relationships with education and positive self-evaluations. So, more attractive people did make more money, but mostly because they got more education and feel better about themselves. Attractiveness alone was only weakly related to life success.

So, when determining life success, it is better to be smart, but attractiveness and self-confidence can help.

There are obvious limitations to the study. The sample size was small and limited to the Boston area — attractiveness might be more important in other parts of the country (i.e., California) and other places in the world. Attractiveness was also measured at adulthood, even though appearance during childhood might have the largest effect on life success.

Also, self-reported income was used as the measure of life success and it could be argued that there is more to life than money. And, of course, correlation does not imply causation – we can’t say for sure that intelligence and attractiveness cause higher incomes, just that they tend to occur together.

Reference: Judge, T.A., Hurst, C. & Simon, L.S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 3, 742–755.

Here is an article from Wired describing another study on how easy it is to influence eyewitness testimony. In an interesting experiment the researchers created fake video clips that showed cheating in a gambling game, and found that, after watching the clip, witnesses to the “cheating” were quite willing to accuse a cheater even when the cheating never really happened. Memories are not literal copies of past events, they are constructions that can be easily altered and manipulated.

Fake Video Can Convince Witnesses to Give False Testimony

Psychologists have long known that our memories of past events can be influenced by misleading information, but now they’ve proven that doctored video evidence can convince people to offer false eyewitness testimony. In a study of 60 college students performing a computerized gambling task, nearly half were willing to testify that they saw their partner cheat in real life after watching fabricated video evidence. Of students who were told that video evidence existed but didn’t watch the footage themselves, only 10 percent gave false testimony.

Here is an article from Wired about using brain scanning techniques to show that things that people can’t recall may still be stored in the brain. In this study the researchers from UC Irvine had students try to remember a list of words and found that, for those words the students could not remember, the brain activity was the same as those words they could remember. This indicates that the memories are there, just not accessible.

Back in graduate school I did similar research, without the brain scanning. We also gave people things to remember and then probed them for partial information when they could not recall during a test. A classic phenomenon is a “feeling of knowing” in which a person will state that they know the information being asked, and might even be able to tell you a bit about it (e.g., “the word begins with b”), but they just can’t remember it now. We also used different kinds of memory tests, such as word-completion tasks, to show that partial memories were intact when there appeared to be forgetting.

Lupker, S.J., Harbluk, J.L., & Patrick, A.S. (1991). Memory for things forgotten. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 897-907.

Forgotten Memories Are Still in Your Brain

For anyone who’s ever forgotten something or someone they wish they could remember, a bit of solace: Though the memory is hidden from your conscious mind, it might not be gone.

In a study of college students, brain imaging detected patterns of activation that corresponded to memories the students thought they’d lost.

Just to ensure that broadcast television continues to die a slow, horrible death we have this news that networks can now show as many commercials as they want. Prior to this, the broadcasters were restricted to 15 minutes of ads per hour. Is it no wonder that more and more people download their video entertainment?

TV broadcasters can now air an unlimited number of ads

Effective September 1, 2009, the federal regulator has removed all advertising limits on conventional television broadcasters such as CTV and CanWest Global. The result is broadcasters will be free to air as many commercials as they want on their television stations. The new policy means viewers can expect more commercials during peak advertising demand periods such as back to school and Christmas time.

Here is an intesting article from Wired on the placebo effect and the development of drugs. It seems that the placebo effect, improvements in medical conditions when a sham pill is given instead of the real drug, is getting larger. Long-established drugs are often found to have no benefit over placebo treatments. Doctors are only now starting to study the placebo effect and how it might be used for good, instead of treated like a nuisance in the testing process.

Placebos Are Getting More Effective. Drugmakers Are Desperate to Know Why.

The fact that an increasing number of medications are unable to beat sugar pills has thrown the industry into crisis. The stakes could hardly be higher. In today’s economy, the fate of a long-established company can hang on the outcome of a handful of tests.

Is exceptional intelligence inherited or acquired during development? It is obviously not one or the other, but a combination of the two. But what is the relative contribution of nature and nurture? And does it work the same in geniuses as it is in people of normal intelligence? Here is an article describing research that suggests that genetics plays a large role in exceptional intelligence, just as it does in normal intelligence.

The influence of genes on exceptional mental ability

A new “mega-analysis” of 11,000 twin pairs, aged between 6 and 71, has helped to plug that gap. The results suggest that genes exert a significant influence on exceptional cognitive ability, similar in magnitude to their influence on the normal range of intelligence. The findings challenge versions of the “discontinuity hypothesis” – the idea that the relative contribution of nature and nurture changes for exceptional ability.