the old and the young utilize different mechanisms to evaluate alternatives:

"This pattern suggests that younger and older adults' comparison processes are influenced by different goals," she said. "Even when older adults show little or no signs of cognitive decline, they make decisions differently than younger adults, in ways that should help them avoid regret."

Labels: decision making, well being

p.j. o'rourke has a great piece on adam smith's wealth of nations... on NPR, of all places. it's worth a listen.

Smith's logical demonstration of how productivity is increased through self-interest, division of labor, and trade disproved the thesis (still dearly held by leftists and everyone's little brother) that bettering the condition of one person necessarily worsens the condition of another. Wealth is not a pizza. If I have too many slices, you don't have to eat the Domino's box.

By proving that there was no fixed amount of wealth in a nation, Smith also proved that a nation cannot be said to have a certain horde of treasure. Wealth must be measured by the volume of trades in goods and services - what goes on in the castle's kitchens and stables, not what's locked in strongboxes in the castle's tower.

Labels: economics, well being

the BBC tells us that "braces 'may not boost happiness'." the study is published in british journal of health psychology, and claims that orthodontics scarcely impact future mental health.

although this is an interesting idea, i'm not sure it holds water because those who do and don't get braces differ in many ways. there are likely certain kinds of parents who push getting braces and certain kinds of kids who whine until they are allowed them. there are also, potentially, certain kinds of parents and kids who just don't think it's worth it. such individuals may not be worse off later in life, whereas the group who cares would be unhappy later if denied braces. psychology has shown that your concern for others' perception of you colors all social interactions.

since circumstances between the two groups differ, this means it is difficult to measure psychological impact of bad teeth. a better study would control for such confounding variables as preference, income, and insurance. perhaps looking at individuals who wanted but couldn't get braces for some medical/income/insurance/parental reason would be a good place to start. can't we get an economist to do the study?

Labels: economics, well being

"area man calls for immediate release of his endorphins"

Labels: political, well being

in part, that is.

first, a definition:

hedonic leveling: the increase in happiness produced when an item is acquired diminishes soon afterward. levels returns to default-state.
lay term: taking for granted

my trip to europe reminded me of one great example of how crap this theory is: my ipod. i cannot express the enjoyment i get from my ipod, even three years after its purchase. granted, it may not be as much as during its first week of use, but it hasn't decreased significantly in the past three years.

yet it is undeniable that we become accustomed to some things. so perhaps the question really is: what characteristics distinguish items resistant to hedonic leveling? mutability and sporadic use may be two factors. i can continually add new songs, books, playlists. new features are created continually; now i can even add a feature to monitor my steps and calorie consumption. items used infrequently may also avoid leveling as one does not readily adjust to them.

and of course, i cannot end a post on hedonic leveling without saying that although certain items may experience this phenomenon, they are still creating a marked increase in our well-being. an excellent example is marriage, which has received much press re: leveling. healthcare and mass transit are other good examples. one must remember that happiness is perhaps one of the least important factors for well-being.

Labels: well being

so everyone's in a tizzy about the first-ever "happiness map":

physorg reports and lists the top three as denmark, switzerland, and austria. many of the results are unsurprising if you follow the happiness pop literature. USA is 23rd.

it may be interesting to compare this to the economic freedom map:

(blue=most free)

i see some correlations (though it's been said before and better).

but i'm confused. does anyone know how this world happiness stuff matters at all if one's default-state affect is largely genetic? psychologists need to make up their minds.

check out some other maps, too.

Labels: neuroscience, well being

men withstand more pain when it is applied by a woman:

When the men were tested by a male researcher dressed in jeans and a T-shirt they were able to withstand nearly a third more pain than their female counterparts.
But when the volunteers were tested by a 21-year-old female dressed in a skirt and high heels "to emphasis her gender role", the men reported pain thresholds much higher than in the tests with the male researcher.

this study does not indicate whether subjective valuation of pain changed via some neural or hormonal mechanism, or whether the male subjects were simply lying to act "tough." i also wonder how this relates to the researcher's earlier work on low symptom report rates among males.

no result, in either direction, was shown in female subjects.

Labels: misc. psych, well being

but i'm not talking about that kind of lefty. i just came across some affective research by richard davidson correlating happiness with utilization of the left hemisphere of our brains - specifically the left prefrontal cortex. check out the '03 NY times article on his work, which also mentions the meditation research i've posted on before.

the prefrontal cortex (PFC) has long been implicated in emotion modulation. activation patterns in the right PFC seem most activated under situations of threat, anxiety, and stress.

so what does this mean - can we just figure out how to quiet the right brain to find happiness? no, causation goes the other way. this just tells us which areas of the brain are being used to handle unpleasant states such as stress and anxiety. what it may do, however, is help avoid some of the survey biases that occur when simply asking someone what they feel. one crux of survey analyses is that few tell the truth, and it would be much simpler just to see it on a brain scan.

but some, unlike our lady peace, think that eating fish may be a link to happiness. a recent study correlate fish consumption to happiness, citing omega-3 fatty acids as the likely culprit. others say that boredom (and its oft-associated depressed affect) is a cleverly devised evolutionary tool, so perhaps happiness isn't the goal anyway. but as this north carolina government site says, it's all about the attitude - whatever that means (yes, tax dollars created that!). and we all know that uncle sam knows best.

Labels: neuroscience, well being

It may be said that pure abstinence, being a mere negation, cannot produce positive effects; the same remark might as well be applied to intrepidity, or even to liberty; but who ever objected to their being considered as equivalent to active agents? To abstain from the enjoyment which is in our power, or to seek distant rather than immediate results, are among the most painful exertions of the human will. It is true that such exertions are made, and indeed are frequent in every state of society, except perhaps in the very lowest, and have been made in the very lowest, for society could not otherwise have improved; but of all the means by which man can be raised in the scale of being, abstinence, as it is perhaps the most effective, is the slowest in its increase, and the least generally diffused -- Nassau W. Senior

from decision science news archives.

Labels: decision making, well being

some people's brains react differently to food marketing. their reward centers are sensitive to these images, which can encourage over-eating.

so does this mean some of us are doomed to give in to cravings? not necessarily. answer: brain plasticity! although our original make-up or behaviors that have been hard-wired through years of social influence are strong, we can significantly effect the functioning of our brains. case in point is the arrowsmith school, which my friend debi pointed out to me a few weeks ago. a PhD student who herself was learning-disabled constructed brain "exercises" to work the deficient areas. according to reports, this has been a dramatic success. her technique is being adopted in other canadian schools as well. what i would love, love, love to see is a fMRI study comparing students before and after the school's lessons.

so, in summary, you're not stuck with what you've got. you've just got to really want what to change and figure out how to do it. perhaps someday we'll have brain exercises for self-control.

Labels: neuroscience, well being

one business is actively trying to slim down its clientele. recently, a hotel owner in germany began an incentive program to get his customers into better shape - by charging them by the kilogram. his rationale: "healthy guests live longer and can come back more often."

although some businesses may benefit from relatively unhealthy habits (e.g. little debbie, mcdonalds), i wonder if they could see long term benefit from unhealthy customers. i would think that a far-sighted company would make their foods as healthy as possible while maintaining sales, right? a healthy person may eat a lot more little debbie cakes in her life than a morbidly obese person who will die 10 years earlier, even if she eats less per day. the healthy consumer will be a better and longer-lasting messenger for the product as well.

as nick naylor says in thank you for smoking, "it's in our best interest to keep robin alive and smoking."

update: although it may be in businesses' best interest to keep their customers alive, healthy, and using their products, it is just the opposite for governments with socialized medical care.

Labels: well being

contagious behaviors include laughing and yawning, but come in all forms, some more common than others. february's APS observer details one subset of the phenomenon, mass psychogenic illness. this illness is transmitted not by virus, bacteria, or prion, but visually. witnessing sickness can make one physically ill through a variety of pre-programmed mechanisms in our brains such as mirror neurons. (see the - disputed -story of a laughter outbreak lasting six months in 1960's tanganyika)

studies indicate that good mood can also be contagious. one recent experiment mentioned in the APS article grouped participants with either a positive or negative confederate, and participants indeed shifted toward the confederate over time. this indicates that folks with depressed affect could benefit greatly from a chipper companion.

are policies promoting happiness are justified by this study - is happiness is a public good? maybe, and lucky for us that those policies feature a great deal of political and individual liberty (see: happiness & economics). but i'm not sure. there are many situations in which lower moods actually are better, such as in accurately assessing situations and developing strategies (which can later positively impact well-being), and indicating how seriously to treat incoming information. so in this light, perhaps spreading preternatural happiness is not such a good idea.

Labels: well being

guerlain has found the solution to unhappiness: their new happylogy line contains pro-endorphins, meant to trigger endorphins in the skin and promote happiness (for only $80). is effectiveness (i'll wager happylogy lacks it) all that separates this from endorphin drugs such as opium?

endorphin-boosters aside, reserach suggests we should be more strategic about the kinds of things we purchase to make us happy:

In a nationwide phone survey of 1,279 adults, respondents were much more likely to claim that a prior experiential purchase made them happier than a material one—57 percent versus 34 percent—even after accounting for differences in price.

this makes sense, although the study seems methodologically flawed, relying solely on recall of items purchased. it is also difficult to account for life quality improvements, a standard complaint of happiness studies - for example, you may not report that a washer & dryer increases your happiness in the same way that a trip to aruba does, but it reduces hassle and frees up time and money for more enjoyable (experiential) activities, etc.

in addition, as the article notes the distinction between experiential and material goods is a bit blurry. most seem to contain both components, guerlain's happylogy products being a great example.

Labels: well being

A lifetime of happiness! No man alive could bear it: it would be hell on earth.
-- george bernard shaw

psychology today reports that hell-on-earth to others - marriage - may not increase one's every day happiness. we tend to return to our happiness "set point" after time, a process called "hedonic leveling."

this is interesting, but it really misses the point entirely (as with much pop happiness research). as happiness is only one small part of the purported benefits of marriage. finding that marriage doesn't help one cope with severe illness, family crises, child rearing, or other major events - now that would be a relevant study.

update: marriage may increase wealth (and therefore, in my opinion, possibly well-being):

Married people will see an increase in wealth that is more than just adding the assets of two single people, according to the study that was published in the Journal of Sociology.

for more on happiness, see will's excellent blog.

Labels: well being

i've been busy writing, but unfortunately not for my blog. so here are a few things from december:

hot and exciting studies in the psychology realm:

• there's a neurological differences between liking and craving sweets. this may hold interesting application to those with drug or eating abnormalities (i.e., liking cocaine may be governed by different neurons than craving it). however, recent evidence also suggests that overeating is often encouraged by social cues rather than cravings. does that mean the rise in compulsive eating support groups is bad? maybe not - it's better to be overweight anyway.


• neural substrates behind the brave lover dueling for his lady's honor: it's all about oxytocin. oxytocin is a hormone thought to be involved with trust, love, breastfeeding, and now with a reduced sense of fear. so, perhaps all we need is a little love to combat those pernicious ad campaigns. (see a previous post on oxytocin and risky decision making)


• the coeval nature of happiness and success exists (PDF). here's an article about the article if you don't have adobe or journal access. will also posted on it.
  
• self-help books will ruin your life (rather, rewarding poor performance in kids, and creating an unrealistically positive self-image and outlook for you, will):

  
  You cannot have a life plan predicated on the belief that everything is equally achievable to you — especially if that same message has been sold indiscriminately to all comers. In the grand scheme of things, knowing one's limitations may be even more important than knowing one's talents.

• could romantic love prevent stroke damage? in separate studies, an increase in nerve growth factor (NGF) has been linked to both the onset of romantic love and reduced damage for stroke victims. thanks to debi for the love/NGF link.


• neural correlates of monogamous relationships found, at least in prairie mice. patterns get "worn" into the brain, and after a while other females don't produce the same neural responses in male brains - i.e., in a monogamous relationship, other females become less something, perhaps we can term it "attractive."

other items:

did the doug bandow story get a little more attention than the armstrong williams one (williams secretly received 240k from bush to strongly advocate no child left behind)? perhaps it's just the world i live in, but it seems so despite many parallels. their defense was similar - "it was something i believed in anyway". the main difference, i suppose, is that williams' payoff was once my money and bandow's was not.

i'm a over halfway into jared diamond's collapse. the book, so far, is rather disappointing (as others have noted) i have not yet seen the words "private" and "property" strung together - very odd indeed for a book on the fall of societies. so far the main lesson is:

• deforestation --> cannibalism

it's good thing the tree cover in the US is expanding (so i hear).

two new and awesome blogs: cato unbound and happiness and public policy.

a really kick-ass post over at cafe hayek on humans' predisposition to look towards a higher authority (e.g., God - or the state). as if you all don't already read it daily. thanks to tenacious jdt for that link.

update: just fixing a ^$&% link.

Labels: links, neuroscience, well being

check out this wired article on the new wave in road construction.

no, seriously, it's fascinating. a clip:

The [traffic] circle is remarkable for what it doesn't contain: signs or signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave. There are no lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk, so it's unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the pedestrian zone begins. To an approaching driver, the intersection is utterly ambiguous - and that's the point.

well, the point is that eliminating top-down driving rules makes drivers more cautious, use their own judgment, and allows them to create their own norms for driving etiquette. evidence given suggests that this indeed makes roads safe and less congested.

the article criticizes the "old ways" of civil engineering – the days of the 5-lane highway - and instead advocates for more smaller, slower roads which strike me as similar to the kind that may have emerged spontaneously. government is said to make travel more organized and therefore safer, but perhaps those two concepts are not always linked.

it's worth noting that homes are still being taken every day for these road projects based on an old model of driver psychology, which may actually worsen the problem they're meant to cure.

one lingering question i have is how they enforce safe driving without rules - do they forgo preemptive enforcement, or is it subjective based on the officer's judgment of safe driving?

hat tip to reihan. title shamelessly stolen from subtitle in the article. i’m not that clever.

Labels: well being

ed diener, positive psychologist and author of books such as culture and subjective well-being, has been a thoughtful proponent of well-being-centric public policy. he spoke at the american psychological convention this year in DC on how too much happiness may actually hamper learning about our emotions, which may have a negative impact on long-term well-being:

you want a functioning gas gauge - you don't want a gas gauge stuck on full.

the terms happiness and well-being are often conflated in popular understanding of the well-being literature, and even sometimes in the academic literature. as this quote indicates, there are important differences between the two concepts, both academically and in policy implications.

Labels: well being

extreme makeover ruins lives! and it's globalization's fault! or, at least according to a new book intriguingly entitled the new individualism (no, not that new individualism). and i quote:

the craze for television makeover shows on gardening, plastic surgery and clothing is partly responsible for a dangerous addiction to reinvention that can ruin lives

reality shows convince viewers that they should improve themselves, creating "disposable identities" and impossible expectations. worse still, globalization creates the fast-paced and fluid economy that demands immediate, impossible, change. elliott and lemert warn this pressure leads to "emotional crisis, depression, confusion, breakdown, loss of personal identity and even suicide."

this dark forecast is contradicted by a study published in 2002 by the american psychologist. the study, by jeffrey arnett, suggests that "new individualism's" underlying force may be positive:

identity becomes less based less on prescribed social roles and more on individual choices, on decisions that each person makes about what values to embrace and what paths to pursue in love and work.

arnett poses three reactions to this choice: identity confusion, seeking refuge in a structured subculture, or open embrace of the decision. most embrace their ability to pick-and-choose, and arnett sees this as not deleterious, but as increasing the likelihood that "they will find a psychologically rewarding match between these choices and their individual desires and abilities."

this all goes back to the tired choice crap: to choose, or to not have a choice? that is the question. psychologists can debate, but i know i'd rather suffer through the agony of selecting a perfectly fitting jeans, or a much cuter nose, than be without. the real question is, would i be just as happy with ill-fitting jeans if i didn't know the perfect ones existed? no, by definition; i'd be uncomfortable.

Labels: decision making, well being

what with the war on abstract concepts (war, terrorism, popularity) going so well, i suppose it was time for bush to start another... bush considers military role for flu fight:

At the time the order was signed, a spokeswoman for the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said the Public Health Service would probably recommend home quarantines when possible, but said they would be voluntary. It's unclear whether the federal takeover of state and local quarantine powers that Bush discussed Tuesday would be limited just to travel or involve broader home quarantines as well.

interesting. doesn't cuba do that, too, to fight their AIDS epidemic?

Labels: well being

the bonanno article from my last post has another interesting insight:

...there appear to be multiple and sometimes unexpected ways to be resilient, and sometimes resilience is achieved by means that are not fully adaptive under normal circumstances.

one such method is trait self-enhancement, the propensity to exhibit self-serving bias in both perception and attribution of desert and guilt. that is, it's a flawed, overly rosy picture of oneself. this research indicates that one who exhibits trait self-enhancement tends to be more resilient, healthy, and happy after traumatic events.

interestingly, in a previous post i noted that perhaps flawed self-assessment leads to an unrealistic assessment of one's ability to ride out a storm (or succeed at other risky endeavors) as well. combined with this research, it seems then that folks with a tendency for trait self-enhancement, although better at weathering disaster, may put themselves in more risky environs in the first place, creating a type of "overconfidence paradox. "

source: bonanno, george. resilience in the face of potential trauma. psychological science, june 2005

Labels: well being

during and after disasters such as september the 11th and hurricane katrina, national attention turns towards how the nation can help survivors. those in the mental health community, naturally, focus on how they can help as well. in the wake of last year's tsunami, media outlets also noted the need for more than simply monetary aide - victims needed counseling, as well. surprisingly, some victims resisted or ignored this kind of aid, pleading instead for more food and help rebuilding their cities. an article in june's psychological science confirms that this may actually be a better allocation of crisis resources.

we image that people confronted with disasters must have a disturbed pattern of functioning. it makes sense; people should have a difficult time moving on after extraordinarily traumatic events. however, george bonanno at columbia university claims:

...the most common reaction among adults exposed to such events is a relatively stable pattern of healthy functioning coupled with the enduring capacity for positive emotion and generative experiences.

given our pop psychological understanding of reaction to tragedy, this surprised me. why does it seem as if people should be less resilient than they are? two posibilities come to mind. first, traumatized victims are a better media story, increasing our perception of their actual incidence in a normal population. a cynic would also say it's in the mental health field's best interest to portray their services as necessary for everyone, but i'm not sure that's always the case, as most of them do seem honestly convinced of being essential.

this study is much needed as it highlights human's amazing coping mechanisms and the power of social networks. it shows our ability to eek out a happy - or at least satisfied - life following very unfortunate events. and that's not so bad.

for more on the good stuff in psychology, see positive psychology.

source: bonanno, george. resilience in the face of potential trauma. psychological science, june 2005

update: fixing typos, that's all.

Labels: social, well being

a brand-new study takes on two popular cultural archetypes, those of the forgetful senior and the “grumpy old man.” it indicates not only that seniors are more interested in positive than negative materials, more so than their younger counterparts, but that they have little to no deficiency in working memory when attending to positive emotional material.

the study, in part, tested working memory, the “scratch pad” of the brain. although it remained true that seniors preformed worse on many memory tasks, there was no significant deficit when processing positive emotional tasks.

perhaps the most interesting element of the study is that the results were inverted for younger participants, who were shown to have better working memories with negative emotional stimuli. younger adults have, in the past, been found to process negative information more thoroughly and weigh it more in decision-making. this makes sense evolutionarily, because neglecting negative information has greater risk to survival. of course, it’s difficult to separate between age and cohort effects in studies like these. it could just be that older generations were more optimistic than younger ones, so longitudinal studies would be necessary.

researchers propose socioemotional selectivity theory as the explanation for this phenomenon. in this theory, goals are ensconced in temporal contexts wherein youth focus on preparing for the future. individuals with restrictions on their time, such as older people and patients with terminal illness, focus on emotionally meaningful objects and events.

carstensen, l.l., and mikels, j.a. at the intersection of emotion and cognition. current directions in psychological science vol. 14 no. 3

Labels: well being

not only do people with lower IQs die earlier, they also may be at greater risk for dementia.

if the correlation between IQ and life satisfaction is still statistically insignificant after factoring in attrition, it would illustrate an important point. although one may be no happier or satisfied with a higher IQ, this trait may lend other important benefits impacting well-being aside from satisfaction with life. IQ may be just like wealth, in that sense, providing a type of insurance against later dissatisfaction or unhappiness, although not impacting it directly.

Labels: well being

british researchers have found no correlation between IQ and self-reported life satisfaction as one ages. the longitudinal study, which measured IQ at 11 and 79 years old, asked participants about both their current life satisfaction and regrets.

notwithstanding flaws with self-report data, this indicates that as a senior, IQ may do little to enhance satisfaction. this makes sense as, i imagine, IQ isn't related to health or companionship, more prominent factors in senior satisfaction.

importantly, it also shows that IQ is unrelated to one's satisfaction with her life decisions. the study posits that IQ must be unrelated, then, to good and bad decisions in life. although this rings true to some extent from my experience, as i know a lot of "smart" people who make very bad decisions, it may not be the full answer. perhaps people with lower IQs make more bad decisions, but are unable to recognize them or envision better alternatives for comparison.

a significant problem with this study - that i'm surprised the journal article didn't mention - is attrition, as people with lower IQs die earlier.

so does this mean that the tables are leveled? not necessarily. many psychologists believe that there are several types of intelligence, and that IQ measures only one. it's still unclear how other kinds relate to life satisfaction.

hat tip to world of psychology.

reference: alan j gow, martha c whiteman, alison pattie, lawrence whalley, john starr, and ian j deary. lifetime intellectual function and satisfaction with life in old age: longitudinal cohort study. british medical journal , jul 2005; 331: 141 - 142

Labels: decision making, well being

this experiment is one step on the road to discovering the extent of the biology's influence on pathological behavior, so it's worth a mention...

mice without a particular neural receptor display pathologically violent behavior, even killing their mates. this indicates that some kinds of violent behavior in normal mice are related to this receptor, whose presence and activity is genetically regulated.

scientists recently created mice with a human form of this receptor. although they lacked their species' receptor, just as the above mice did, they acted normally. this illustrates that the human receptor serves a homologous function, pinpointing one locus that relates to violent behavior in humans. moreover, it suggests that some pathological behaviors in humans may be linked to the gene for this receptor, a gene that has already been linked, i believe, to other abnormal behaviors such as those categorized under bi-polar disorder.

Labels: well being

acting violently serves as immunization against the effects of community violence. or, so says a study founding a correlation between acts of violence and reduced incidence of depression in violent communities.

being aggressive in the context of community violence could be an adaptive strategy that preserves adolescents' sense of control in a volatile and unpredictable environment. "This may seem counter intuitive, that violence in a violent context could be somewhat protective for psychological well-being among adolescent boys."

the "vaccine" only works for males, it seems, and the older, the stronger the correlation. for girls, the inverse is true, with violent offenders becoming more depressed than their passive counterparts.

correlation is not always causation, and there are several explanations for this correlation besides that of a "violence vaccine." one among them is that there could be something particular about persons who act out violently that also prevents them from being depressed - perhaps a kind of proactive, although perverse, resilience.

acting violently could very well, however, actually help stave of depression. it could give the actor a feeling of control that is probably lacking in violent neighborhoods, a feeling that is very often discussed as a significant component of psychological well-being.

it seems fairly obvious why the correlation is positive for girls, who not only face the legal repercussions of violent actions, but also more social pressure to "behave" than boys typically do. in addition, the threshold for violent action in girls, i'm willing to bet, may be much higher. that is, girls are less prone to violence both biologically and socially. because of this, fewer girls act violently. since fewer girls act violently, the ones that do have reached a much higher threshold, skewing the sample towards really messed-up individuals who may be more likely to be depressed than the wider sample of boys who are violent at the drop of a hat.

Labels: misc. psych, well being

the centre for neuroimaging sciences just announced the results of a study indicating that yes, ice cream makes our brains very happy. participants were strapped to an fMRI machine and given vanilla ice cream:

The results showed that eating the ice cream had an immediate effect on parts of the brain that previous research has shown are activated when someone is really enjoying themselves.

the “pleasure centers” this brief article mentions are in the dopaminergic centers involved in motivation and reward that are, interestingly enough, also activated by most controlled substances.

although we enjoy being high on ice cream (or IC, as it's known on the street), the health consequences of long-term abuse include obesity and high cholesterol, as well as greater risk of disorders such as type 2 diabetes. in addition, ice cream is expensive. a ben & jerry’s pint is around $4. consuming one or two of those puppies a day can really add up and siphon money away from more beneficial uses. when resources are tight and an IC craving strikes, things can get messy. case in point, me craving ice cream when i can't have it. witnesses can testify.

and in all seriousness, addiction is also a risk. overindulgence on any substance that overstimulates reward centers can induce the main feature of addiction, motivational toxicity*, when the effectiveness of rewards normally effective in governing behavior (namely, rewards promoting survival) are diminished. you could argue that ice cream counts as a normal reward, but that seems like stretching it to me.

interestingly enough the above seem to parallel justifications for the drug war.

physiologically, activation of reward centers is identical no matter the trigger substance. so, ice cream induces the same reaction in one’s brain in areas relevant to future behavior as that of controlled substances such as alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, or heroin. the only difference would be, i assume, the level of activity in the center which probably varies by drug type and potency. ice cream would, of course, be at the far bottom of the spectrum.

* motivational toxicity’s neurological substrates have not (yet) been identified. it’s commonly thought to be a decrease in dopaminergic function due to chronic use.

more about: different legal status, same physiology

Labels: neuroscience, well being

anyone else feel like i'm beating a dead horse with this wealth/well-being crap? wait, don't answer that. i have one more thing to say about it and then i'll move on for a while.

folks are all excited that studies cannot prove a positive correlation between wealth and happiness, with some large exceptions. psychologists seem to feel this discredits the merits of wealth (and, generally, capitalism). they may be wrong on several counts, and they also forget that happiness is correlated to very few things anyway. in fact, studies show that even one's health is not even correlated to her happiness.

to psychologists, studies of wealth and well-being "prove" that wealth is not an ultimate goal of society as it is not relevant, generally, to happiness. if one applies that logic to health vs. happiness discovery, we'd have to conclude that good health is also not a worthy goal in and of itself because it does not directly promote happiness. significant funds should be diverted from medical research to things psychologist deem more likely to produce happiness, like cognitive therapy, perhaps.

of course, no one dares to seriously make this argument, but it does help to illustrate how silly the well-being-over-wealth argument is. that the link between health and well-being is tenuous does not mean we should ignore health. health has objective value, and the same goes for wealth. and wealth may not make us that much happier, but it serves a net good nonetheless by, among other things, providing us with safety and security during crisis and disability.

Labels: well being

a new study reveals circumstances when money does buy happiness. it turns out that although psychologists claim that wealth above a minimal threshold has no impact on well-being, it certainly does after one suffers tragedy, such as illness or disability:

The analysis showed that those whose financial assets had been above the median before they were disabled suffered a much smaller drop in self-reported well-being than those who had been below the median. A second analysis confirmed that there was a relationship between a person's net worth and the drop in their well-being after disability.

of course those with more cash reserves are better equipped to handle disaster. although these reserves themselves, during good times, do not improve well-being, they certainly will cushion the fall during crisis. earlier i wrote on money's tangential effects on well-being during natural disaster:

the market has the best record of meeting the most essential levels of maslow's hierarchy of needs, even during times of crisis. for market pessimists, we can think of it as an insurance system. although we may pay in a certain percentage of happiness for materialism due to markets (a debatable premise), we gain when disaster strikes. and the gain may make it worth it.

wealth, then, becomes much more significant than psychologists claim. as wealth promotes well-being during crisis, and this well-being in turn facilitates not only healing, but accumulation of more wealth, the balance in your bank account is no laughing matter.

Labels: economics, well being

in his new book blink, malcom gladwell writes:

...even the most complicated of relationships and problems have an identifiable pattern. ...overloading the decision makers with information makes picking up that signature harder, not easer. To be a successful decision maker, we have to edit.

this reminds me of a a study i read last month (pdf) in psychological science that hints at why we're so bad at decisions involving too much information. researchers at the university of queensland handed a group of academics information on the interaction between variables, and asked them to make a judgment requiring synthesis of the relationships.

synthesizing three variables was difficult, and more left the academics dumfounded:

“At the level of the four-way interactions, participants made comments such as “Everything fell apart and I had to go back”,” Professor Halford said.

a fashionable critique of the market is that it provides too much choice - i.e., too many variables to consider. consumers can become overwhelmed, and barry schwartz's book paradox of choice claims this leads to "bad decisions, to anxiety, stress, and dissatisfaction - even to clinical depression."

although by no means a scholarly work, gladwell's book is important in highlighting the counterintuitive observation that economizing is key in decision making, and it seems that process can alleviate some of the supposed psychological harms of the market. halford et. al have told us exactly how far we should go with the information we do use.

from all this we know we must economize, and by how much. now we need someone to tell us how to determine which variables to include in our analyses. i'm inclined to say that reviews are key here. for example, when purchasing a car i can test drive every car on the market and keep accurate record of my observations. my working memory will then overload and my mind will "drop" all of my mental bundles, leaving me tired, frustrated, and confused. a smarter option would be to pick up consumer reports and car & driver. they have done some of the filtering for me, and i can instead focus on a few key criteria.

the ironic part for market critics is that these filtering mechanisms are demanded by consumers, and provided via the free market, to help ameliorate the harms they critique.

[the tile of this post is derived from a quote by military genius paul van riper: "in the act of tearing something apart, you lose its meaning."]

reference: halford, gs, rosemary, b, mccredden, je, and bain, jd. "how many variables can humans process?" psychological science, january 2005

Labels: decision making, well being

the lesser prairie chicken, an odd bird with an even stranger courtship routine, once roamed the western plains in flocks as large as 1,000 (a frightening prospect). hunting, overgrazing, and plowing destroyed their habitat, and in the last 100 years the lesser prairie chicken population has plummeted to just 3 percent of its former glory.

the nature conservancy, a nonprofit based in arlington, virgnia, recently purchased nearly 20,000 acres of prime prairie chicken habitat in new mexico. although the ranch’s former owners will retain a limited livestock operation, the land will largely serve as a preserve for this and other imperiled prairie creatures. the acquisition is seen as a coup for prairie chicken preservation efforts, and benefits the ranchers as well. it will also presumably benefit taxpayers by halting many of creamer ranch’s usda subsidies.

the nature conservancy’s mission has always impressed me as being respectful of private citizens as well as the environment, two forces that need not always be at cross purpose. the conservancy strives to preserve habitat and species not by forcing others to conserve, but by simply purchasing and managing critical lands. since the land is then the conservancy’s alone, they can be confident that lands are treated in an ecologically sensitive manner. this method comes at no expense to taxpayers and to the mutual benefit of both the former land owner and the conservancy. many times the organization is able to purchase conservation easements at a lower cost, allowing owners to maintain usage of their lands while ensuring their preservation.

although i’m concerned with the conservancy’s recent direction, including an increasing reliance on governmental mechanisms for securing and maintaining lands, they’ve got the right idea in general for preserving critical habitat for endangered species.

Labels: social, well being

let's suppose, as prominent psychologists have done, that the market produces not only goods and services, but also a great deal of malcontent by promoting materialism. i'd counter that point, but let's just suppose it, worst-case-scenario, for now. psychologists promote this theory not in spite of, but party because of, the observation that markets create more wealth than competing economic systems. so to simplify: markets => surplus wealth => materialism => unhappiness.

natural disasters, such as the recent tsunami, are horrific and cause profound damage both physically and psychologically. add to these observations and theories the correlation that wealthier and more market-oriented nations have are not impacted as severely by disasters, natural and otherwise. the inconceivable dearth of well-being resulting from disaster might outweigh the benefits of a non-materialistic, non-market, society unable to cope with disaster as well.

the problem with many well-being studies (especially the recent day-by-day studies) is that they do not account for major life events and their ongoing impact on every day well-being. events such as the tsunami will impact the people of those regions for decades to come, mostly for the worse. a child's college graduation may generate such a high volume of happiness that in net sum cancels out unhappiness due to the banal daily rearing tasks, tipping the scales in favor of children on the net making parents happy. so yes, perhaps some daily transactions in the market make us unhappy - but let's not forget the overall picture.

the market has the best record of meeting the most essential levels of maslow's hierarchy of needs, even during times of crisis. for market pessimists, we can think of it as an insurance system. although we may pay in a certain percentage of happiness for materialism due to markets (a debatable premise), we gain when disaster strikes. and the gain may make it worth it.

Labels: well being

before and during meditation, tibetan monks displayed astoundingly increased brain wave activity, in particular in the left prefrontal cortex (lpc). this area is associated with many things, including positive affect. the longer they’d been meditating, the higher the levels.

the results of this study make a lot of sense. just like any other part of one’s body, if you train and use it regularly, it will perform in a different manner. until now, no one knew exactly what aspects of the brain monks were training.

chronically depressed individuals have lower activation in the lpc. in children, it’s silence has been implicated in attention deficit disorder – in fact, adderall stimulates the lpc, among other areas. its absence has even been implicated in turning a patient’s bipolar disorder into schizophrenia. this finding is a breakthrough - by practicing one may be able to increase its activity and possibly, therefore, reduce the above abnormalities naturally.

but perhaps i'm getting ahead of myself. a cautionary note comes from the researcher's own work. in a recent study (pdf), richard davison found no change in lpc activity when he trained students to meditate, which he attributes to the short duration and/or intensity of meditation. students did, however, show less anxiety and more blood antibodies.

thanks to john for the link!

Labels: neuroscience, well being

prompted by will’s post (ages ago, in blogtime- but hey, i've been in the dark for a while!) and those requisite Christmastime political arguments, i must agree that libertarians tend to be a happier. indeed, research may bear this out in some ways. keeping in mind that life is unfair, and unequal – if not inherently, at least we can agree it is at present so:

MacCulloch (2000) reported that … in the United States only liberals are made less happy by inequality. Thus, the effects of societal characteristics depend to some extent on the ideological views of respondents.
(Deiner, E. and Seligman, M. “Beyond Money: Towards an Economy of Well-Being” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2004)

the belief that trade is positive sum, which libertarians tend to have, alleviates a great deal of guilt (as some of will's commenters noted), while participation in free trade creates unhappiness and dissonance among liberals. and then there's the whole belief that consumerism is the great evil consuming our souls.

the liberal (and indeed, the conservative) point of view on human nature states that if left to our own devices, society would devolve into a dirty, violent, chaos devoid of good will or prosperity. we’d all lop off each other’s heads, force our youngins to sew wallets 17 hours a day, and worse still – we’d all smoke crack. and we certainly would not send our children to school (they're too busy with the wallets). what an awful thing to think about your species. it would make me cranky too.

i can go all day without encountering aggravating things - having to pay taxes or read about politics, for example. these are activities i go out of my way for. the things that make liberals unhappy are all around - rampant consumerism, inequality, trade, etc. etc...

let's forget about all these anti-povery policies. if we’re all truly concerned with well-being as the ultimate goal (which, granted, not everyone is), if we see gross national happiness as a greater meter than gross national product, we should all be libertarians. now, who’s gonna tell king wangchuck?

Labels: ideology, well being

over at world of psychology i posted about a study revealing the possible genetic link to alcoholism and enjoyment of alcohol.

alcohol promotes release of endogenous opioids, which activate mu opioid receptors in the brain. this opioid system in turn affects the mesolimbic dopamine system involved in craving, reinforcement, and motivation. the mu opioid receptors are encoded by a specific gene, oprm 1, and they come in two varieties: the g and a version.

Results indicate that individuals with the G allele had higher subjective feelings of intoxication, stimulation, sedation, and happiness across trials as compared to participants with the A allele.

which sounds great for those with the g allele. but there's a major drawback to this higher level of enjoyment - it creates more stimulation of those dopamine receptors involved in reinforcement and motivation, leading to higher probability of addiction. it seems to follow that this pattern may be the same for other drugs that stimulate the opioid system such as heroin, opium, and cocaine (cocaine indirectly, because as with alcohol it is not an opiate derivative).

this is an incredible finding with heath and policy implications. it is important to be aware of a genetic predisposition for any disorder, so one may modify his/her behavior. just one may watch his/her eating and exercise habits if predisposed to diabetes or heart disease, one with a g allele should be careful of alcohol consumption.

as g allele folks get "higher subjective feelings of intoxication, stimulation, sedation" and etc. with lower blood alcohol levels than the a types. should a and g allele folks be subject to the same blood alcohol levels in drunk-driving tests, then? (actually, a different test would be better still)

in addition, i wonder if those with a alleles are subject to comparatively heavier binge drinking and therefore health problems than one with a g allele (for those who do not develop chronic alcoholism). since a types must drink more to become intoxicated, and to many the goal of drinking is intoxication, it seems logical that they would drink more on a particular night. just imagine if you needed 1,000 more calories per day to feel full than someone else the same size. you'd definitely feel the physical effects of that.

reference: Hutchison, K. E. and Ray, L. A. "A polymorphism of the gamma-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1) and sensitivity to the effects of alcohol in humans." Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 28, 12

Labels: neuroscience, well being

a book i’m reading now, the paradox of choice by barry schwartz, discusses two types of consumers. his theory contends that there are those who must find the best possible item at the best possible price (“maximizers”), and those who take a more measured approach by settling on a “good enough” item because they don’t want to waste their time analyzing seemingly infinite alternatives (“satisficers”). after reading this, i began to think about my last post on shopping around, i thought i’d bring a bit of it to bear on the subject.
the ncc laments that many poor people cannot afford to be maximizers, searching for the best price to cut costs. however, schwartz suggests that this strategy may not be psychologically rewarding. he cites studies backing up his claim that maximizers “get less satisfaction out of” and “feel less positive about” their purchases than do those who look at few options. one study indicates that the more options we examine, the less satisfied we are with our final choice. interestingly, but not surprisingly, maximizers are also less satisfied with life in general and tend to be more depressed.
i’m not going to claim that being poor increases happiness, but i am going to suggest that perhaps having to choose among fewer options may not be as bad as it may seem, and is not necessarily something society needs to fix.

Labels: economics, well being

the uk's national consumer council (ncc) has just released a report claiming that the impoverished pay more for their goods than do the well-healed. they claim that:

The poor pay more because life on a cash budget is more expensive. You pay more if you can't bulk buy or afford a weekly shop. And if you can't get around because of a disability or limited transport, you can't shop around for the best deal.

although intuitively it makes sense that those with the luxury to bargain-hunt will get better prices, it may not play out that way in most cases. from my experience, few people actually go to several grocery stores to compare the price of asparagus. on large purchases such as cars and appliances wealthier consumers may actually spend the time and money to shop around, but on general items i doubt they do – they may have the time but value it more than the extra dollar they’ll save.
even when one wants to comparison-shop, there are many ways to do so other than physically driving from one store to the next, something many cannot do. with everyday items as well as larger ones, prices are listed in a number of publications accessible to both the rich and poor alike, and many listings come directly to those with mailboxes or doorsteps. prices are also a phone call or internet café away, and word of mouth is another important method to discovering the cheapest vendors.
even in cases where the very poor and very rich pay different prices for the same goods, what is a “fair” price is determined solely by the amount one is willing to pay, and that is perhaps a different price for different classes of people. we live our lives by comparison; because one person is getting a better deal, others feel cheated, but in reality if you’re paying what it’s worth to you, you’re getting the best deal possible.

Complex mobile phone and utility price packages are also cited as being particularly difficult for many poorer Britons to understand.

i’m not quite sure what the ncc’s prescription is. complex matters, as many financial affairs are, are by definition difficult to understand. first, it’s insulting to equate being poor with being unable (or unwilling) to understand complex matters. second, i hate leaving this with “well, that just life” but it’s true; those unable to comprehend the complexities of the world will pay more, and likely that’s the least of their troubles.

Labels: economics, well being

the other day a friend posed the question: if you could test for an illness you knew would kill you later in life, would you choose to take the test or live in ignorance? the response was overwhelmingly for the latter option. i held the dissenting opinion. i’d rather know so i could live my life to the fullest. a recent study may back up my decision.

through genetic testing women can discover a genetic mutation that can lead to certain types of cancer including breast and ovarian. researchers at georgetown wondered how this test impacted happiness, so they followed a group of women for six months after they were tested for the mutation. the results showed that those who tested negatively were, as one would predict, happier afterwards. the surprising result is that those who tested positive for the mutation were not affected either way – they felt the same as before the test was administered.
an interesting result is that those who test negative can have significant guilt that they escaped somehow but their relatives did not, a phenomenon we also see when people survive traumatic incidents.

from psychology today

Labels: decision making, well being

"the Platonic metaphor of the mind as a charioteer driving twin horses of reason and emotion is on the right track - except that cognition is a smart pony, and emotion a big elephant".

the new zeland news reports on neuroscientific studies trying to explain why humans, despite what economists say, behave irrationally sometimes (or, more than sometimes, as i've observed). the article states that economics is based on the fallacy that people behave rationally when making economic decisions. economists and behavioral scientists have been bickering about this for a while, but neuroscience may have something interesting to say about it.

first let me say in defense of economics: saying that economics is based on individual rational behavior is untrue - from my admittedly limited study of the subject it seems it's really the study of aggregate behavior, which does usually tend towards the rational laws economists espouse. individual behaviors are a different story. it's true that we all make decisions based on what we see as the costs and benefits of the outcome, but how accurately we can gauge that outcome in objective standards is another question entirely and should be the subject of it’s own post.

the nz reports on the classic study where person a gets $10 and has the option of giving some to person b. person b can accept or reject the gift. typically if person a offers only a dollar or two, person b rejects the gift, presumably because s/he’s offended. however that’s not usually how it happens – person a typically offers nearly half of what s/he’s given, and person b usually accepts it.

in the experiment, both person a and b have a clear understanding that what position they’re in is a result wholly of the turn of the die. that “a” has $10 and “b” none has nothing to do with hard work, only randomization on the part of the experimenter. i wonder how the results would change if there were a pre-game that distributed the money more meritocratically. or if person b was told that the $10 came straight out of person a’s pocket, and not the lab’s. this would give us a clearer picture of how these situations work in the “real world.”

i’d argue that perhaps taking that one dollar as opposed to rejecting the offer is not always the most rational choice anyway. there are things that people value more than one dollar, including pride. perhaps person “b” is in reality paying one dollar for the ability to hurt person “a”’s feelings like a did to him/her.

now about the neuroscience: when person b is offered only a few bucks, the insular cortex "lights up." ignoring my extreme skepticism about MRIs, this is not surprising. we think the insular cortex has to do with happiness/sadness (and a bunch of other things like memory and language). according to this study, the prefrontal “competes” with the insular cortex, and is the source of the rational impulse to take the low offer. the more “activated” the insular, the more likely to reject the offer, and the more “activated” the prefrontal, the more likely to accept.

does this mean that the insular cortex is related to emotional (and therefore objectively unwise) reactions and the prefrontal to more rational deliberation? maybe. it’s true the prefrontal cortex is thought to be involved in coordinating thoughts and actions in a goal-directed way. it’s also, interestingly enough, thought to be involved in impulse control and “forward thinking.” perhaps it’s the mature part of the brain.

more on this later i'm sure. it's a constant theme of economics and behavioral science.

Labels: decision making, neuroscience, well being

you'll be rich! but then... will you be happy?

an interesting article on happiness and wealth landed above the fold of today's wall street journal marketplace section. it's central argument comes from psychologists seligman (of positive psychology fame) and diener. their study concludes that although a certain amount of wealth is required to attain happiness, that amount is little over the minimum wage line. at some unknown rung on the economic ladder we reach a point of diminishing returns where more money doesn't lead to a higher sense of well-being, contentment, or satisfaction.

but, you say, economists constantly argue that wealthier nations are happier nations. how can we reconcile this discrepancy? on the aggregate that's true, but as the article points out, it's only a correlation. seligman and diener rightly indicate that wealthy nations typically also have things such as liberty and rule of law. this is an interesting thread that i hope psychologists will pursue. instead of looking at wealth per se, a divisive tactic, we can all agree that institutions promoting freedom lead to a polity that's happy as clams - or, at least, has a better chance of being so lucky.

another intersting point from the article: the happier you are, the more money you'll make. perhaps i can then draw the conclusion: freedom causes happpiness, happiness causes wealth, therefore freedom causes wealth. huh.

article: Wealth and Happiness Don't Necessarily Go Hand in Hand, B1, WSJ 8-13-2004.
more on seligman and positive psychology
more on happiness vs wealth

Labels: well being

today the fda rejected a surgical implant that had great potential to help those with chronic depression. although the fda's advisory committee gave the implant the go-ahead, it didn't pass muster with the fda itself. this issue brings up several dilemmas for free will. i haven't sorted them all out yet, so i'll think "aloud."

as for the device itself. fda-approved or no, utilizing an implant to control one's mood seems a drastic measure. i don't mean to be a luddite but it seems that this technology takes away critical choice for the individual, in that a mood is a kind of choice. of course thomas szaz or peter breggin would claim so. (i won't go into breggin's entire argument, but you can read it here.) it may be different for pharmaceuticals - although a pill controls mood during the time the drug is in the brain, that time span is much shorter. the individual has the choice to be drugged more frequently.

even if one surrenders to this line of reasoning (permanently drugged=bad), which is a stretch in itself, having free will to choose this is significant. can one opt to be a slave to a drug? certainly, esp. if the other choice is a life of despair or worse, suicide - good therapy is not an option either for philosophical or monetary reasons for some. the fda is withholding a possible - and possibly life-saving - remedy for a debilitating disorder. depression wrecks many people's lives, many people who for various reasons - including unstable lives and incomes - cannot take a pill every day.

is the fda being overly cautious? is it harming more than helping in this case, or would it be safer to wait and do more tests, risking the happiness and, not to be overly dramatic, lives of those who could benefit? to me it seems that the government should allow patients to make that cost-benefit analysis with a physician.

for more info on psychiatric drugs vs personal sovereignty, check out the group MindFreedom. i'm not associated with them in any tangible way, but they're interesting...

Labels: drugs, neuroscience, well being

a psychologist has found that too many choices make humans unhappy. i say, what's the point? too few choices make people anxious too, i'd imagine. did anyone measure happiness in communist russia? do we really have to go there?

those who say wealth of opportunity and/or choices can only make you worse off have never truly been without those choices.

the washington post reports.

more about the book, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less.

Labels: well being