The Daily Brain is a website for people who love asking questions and searching for answers – especially when the answers lead to new questions.

 

Syndicated by

Search
Get the Books

 

 

 

 

Featured Goodies
Sunday
Jun082014

When It Comes To Choosing Mates, Women And Men Often Get Framed

If I tell you that seven of ten doctors believe a medication is helpful, the positive weight of the seven endorsements will trump potential negatives. But if I tell you that three of ten doctors believe that a medication should be avoided, the weight of those three negative critiques will overpower potential positives.  The information in either case is the same – the only difference is how it's framed.

Our susceptibility to the framing bias has been demonstrated in study after study (most notably by Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman), and now a new study by Concordia University researchers shows how framing influences our selection of love interests.

Hundreds of study participants were given positively and negatively framed descriptions of potential partners. For example:

"Seven out of 10 people who know this person think that this person is kind." [positive frame]

versus

"Three out of 10 people who know this person think that this person is not kind." [negative frame]

The researchers tested the framing effect across six attributes that are known from previous research to rank high in importance to men and women; four that are important to either sex, and two that are important to both sexes:

  • Attractive body (usually more important to men)
  • Attractive face (usually more important to men)
  • Earning potential (usually more important to women)
  • Ambition (usually more important to women)
  • Kindness (equally important to both)
  • Intelligence (equally important to both)

Participants evaluated both “high-quality” (e.g. seven out of 10 people think this person is kind) and “low-quality” (e.g. three out of 10 people think this person is kind) prospective mates for each of these attributes, in the context of a short-term fling or a long-term relationship.

What the research team found is that more often than not, women were significantly less likely to show interest in men described with the low-quality frame, even though they were being presented with exactly the same information as they were in the high-quality frames.

"When it comes to mate selection, women are more attuned to negatively framed information due to an evolutionary phenomenon called 'parental investment theory,'" says study co-author and Concordia marketing professor Gad Saad, a noted researcher on the evolutionary and biological roots of consumer behavior.

"Choosing someone who might be a poor provider or an unloving father would have serious consequences for a woman and for her offspring. So we hypothesized that women would naturally be more leery of negatively framed information when evaluating a prospective mate.”

In particular, women were most susceptible to the framing bias when evaluating a man’s earning potential and ambition.

Men, on the other hand, fell prey to framing most often when evaluating a woman’s physical attractiveness.

While these results at first seem to reinforce stereotypes about how women and men seek mates, they make sense in light of what we know about evolutionary psychology. And they provide an important takeaway for both sexes: before you draw a final conclusion about a would-be mate, consider whether you’re being overly influenced by how their good or bad attributes have been framed, either by others or by the person her or himself. Better to check your bias early than suffer its consequences later.

The study was published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior.

You can find David DiSalvo on Twitter @neuronarrative, at his website The Daily Brain, and on YouTube at Your Brain Channel. His latest book is Brain Changer: How Harnessing Your Brain’s Power To Adapt Can Change Your Life.

Sunday
May182014

Could Cooperation and Corruption Originate with the Same Hormone?

We humans contend with quite a few wicked flip sides in our personal and interpersonal lives. Gratitude can transform into resentment. Concern can morph into apathy. Love can quickly become hate. New research digs deeper into a similar neurobiological duality that can, and frequently does, run rampant in groups: the Jekyll and Hyde of cooperation and corruption.

Researchers hypothesized that oxytocin—the same hormone that previous studies have linked to collaboration and altruism—can predispose us to acting dishonestly if we think doing so will benefit our group of choice. A “group” in this case means anyone to whom we feel some sense of obligation, be it family, coworkers, peers, political cronies or our Friday night craft beer buddies.

In our day-to-day lives, oxytocin is thought to play a big role in how closely bonded we feel to our group. It isn’t just the “cuddle hormone” (often discussed in studies about love and affection) but also the group-cohesion hormone.

To test the hypothesis, the research team gave one group of healthy male participants a dose of oxytocin via nasal spray and another group a placebo nasal spray (neither the participants nor the researchers knew which participants received which spray). The participants were then asked to toss a coin multiple times and make predictions on whether they’d flip heads or tails, and then self-report on the results. How well they did, they were told, would win or lose money for their fellow group members. How they reported—honestly or dishonestly—was kept anonymous, assuring the participants that how they chose to respond wouldn’t reflect back on them personally.

We might guess that participants would lie more often about the results only if they, individually, could benefit – but instead participants given oxytocin lied significantly more about the coin flip than the placebo group only if doing so gained money for their fellow group members. And they lied for the group even if they thought that the favor wouldn't be reciprocated.

To find out how participants would react if they thought they’d benefit individually, the researchers put another group through the same testing conditions but told participants that the results of their predictions would only win or lose them money, with no group benefit or loss attached. The results showed that oxytocin did not influence participants to lie any more than those in the placebo group.

In other words, oxytocin promoted lying for group but not individual benefit.

The study has a few limitations, the most obvious of which is that it used only male participants. Whether or not oxytocin would influence females toward group dishonesty is impossible to tell from these results.

But, at least for men, it seems that higher levels of oxytocin potently affect decisions to lie for the group’s benefit. This may help explain the “you go, I go, we all go” nature of fraternal groups. And the results highlight the role of group bonding in forging hard-to-crack corruption. Last year's hit movie, The Wolf of Wall Street, a true tale about a group of corrupt stock brokers making an obscene amount of ill-gotten money, and lying to ensure that no one got caught (at least for a while), comes to mind as a vivid illustration.

The study was published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

You can find David DiSalvo on Twitter @neuronarrative, at his website The Daily Brain, and on YouTube at Your Brain Channel. His latest book is Brain Changer: How Harnessing Your Brain’s Power To Adapt Can Change Your Life.

Tuesday
May062014

Your Brain Channel Has Launched! 

Hi everyone! Just wanted to let you know that I've launched a new science video channel on YouTube called Your Brain Channel. We'll be featuring brief "News You Can Use" video segments on a range of science-related topics. Please check out the first couple of entries on the green tea-memory connection and testing the sleep debt theory. Plenty more videos to come, so check back often. Thanks! 

 

Thursday
May012014

The Connection Between Playing Video Games and a Thicker Brain

For all the negative news about the alleged downsides of playing video games, it’s always surprising to come across research that shows a potentially huge upside. A new study fills the bill by showing that heavy video game play is associated with greater “cortical thickness” – a neuroscience term meaning greater density in specific brain areas.

Researchers studied the brains of 152 adolescents, both male and female, who averaged about 12.6 hours of video gaming a week. As one might guess, the males, on average, played more than the females, but all of the participants spent a significant amount of time with a gaming console. The research team wanted to know if more time spent gaming correlated with differences in participants’ brains.

What they found is that the brains of adolescents that spent the most time playing video games showed greater cortical thickness in two brain areas: the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the left frontal eye field (FEF).

The prefrontal cortex is often referred to as our brain’s command and control center. It’s where higher order thinking takes place, like decision-making and self-control.  Previous research has shown that the DLPFC plays a big part in how we process complex decisions, particularly those that involve weighing options that include achieving short-term objectives with long-term implications. It’s also where we make use of our brain’s working memory resources – the information we keep “top of mind” for quick access when making a decision.

The FEF is a brain area central to how we process visual-motor information and make judgments about how to handle external stimuli. It’s also important in decision-making because it allows us to efficiently figure out what sort of reaction best suits what’s happening around us. The term “hand-eye coordination” is part of this process.

Together, the DLPFC and FEF are crucial players in our brain’s executive decision-making system. Greater “thickness” in these brain areas (in other words, more connections between brain cells) indicates a greater ability to juggle multiple variables, whether those variables have immediate or long-term implications, or both.

While this study doesn’t quite show that playing hours of videos games each week causes these brain areas to grow thicker, the correlation is strong – strong enough to consider the possibility that gaming is sort of like weight lifting for the brain.

And that, even more than the video game connection, is what makes this study really interesting. It suggests that the popular terms “brain training” and "brain fitness" are more than marketing ploys to sell specialized software. If it’s true that playing video games is not unlike exercise that beefs up our brain’s decision-making brawn, then it logically follows that we can not only perceptually, but physically improve our brains with practices designed for the purpose. Future research will continue exploring precisely that possibility.

The study was published in the online journal PLoS ONE.

You can find David DiSalvo on Twitter @neuronarrative and at his website, The Daily Brain. His latest book is Brain Changer: How Harnessing Your Brain’s Power To Adapt Can Change Your Life.

Monday
Apr282014

Can Chocolate In A Pill Boost Heart Health?

We've been hearing about the alleged health benefits of eating dark chocolate for the last decade or so, including lower blood pressure and improved cholesterol levels. Those claims are about to be put to an exhaustive test in a study of 18,000 adults in Boston and Seattle. But instead of eating chocolate bars every day, the study participants will take capsules containing concentrated amounts of the bio-active chemicals in cocoa beans, known as cocoa flavanols.

If study results are consistent with previous studies showing health benefits of eating cocoa flavanols, it will be a semi-sweet outcome for chocolate lovers. Generally, the higher the level of cocoa, the less sweet the chocolate -- though even chocolate with 72% cocoa contains in the neighborhood of 240 calories per serving, including 10 grams of sugar and 18 grams of fat.

The study participants will theoretically get all of the good stuff without the extra calories from fat and sugar.  Each participant will take two flavorless capsules a day containing 750 milligrams of cocoa flavanols (or dummy pills for those in the control group) for four years. Over that time, participants' heart health will be monitored to determine if the mega dose of cocoa does what previous, smaller studies indicate. To ingest the same amount of cocoa flavanols as the study participants would require eating almost five bars of dark chocolate a day.

Cocoa is thought to benefit heart health by acting as a vasodilator, meaning it triggers relaxation of muscle cells within blood vessel walls. Relaxed blood vessels naturally widen, resulting in greater blood flow and decreased blood pressure.

The latest research is being funded by Mars Inc., makers of M&Ms and other candies, and the National Heart, Lung and Blood InstituteMars co-sponsoring the study will raise red flags with critics, but it’s worth noting that the company has funded cocoa flavanol research since the 1990s, and much of what we know about the possible benefits of cocoa has emerged from Mars-supported studies.

You can find David DiSalvo on Twitter @neuronarrative and at his website, The Daily Brain. His latest book is Brain Changer: How Harnessing Your Brain’s Power To Adapt Can Change Your Life.