Are you spending your money in the happiest way?

Visit any Barnes & Noble and the financial shelves will be chock full of books telling us how to make money, or invest it more wisely.  But a new book called “Happy Money: The Science of Smarter Spending,” by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton, presents an entirely new perspective – challenging us to focus instead on how we spend money (one of the book's taglines: "If you don't think money buys happiness, you're just not spending it the right way"). Dunn and Norton’s bottom line: when it comes to swiping your credit card, don’t always trust your instincts – trust the research (which forms the basis for their five principles).

Said one reader, whose book review appeared at goodreads.com:

“Once you get past a certain level of income, where your basic needs are met, having more money doesn’t make you happier. But HOW you spend your money CAN make your happier. Spending your money on experiences, delaying gratification, etc. can make you enjoy what you do spend on.”

Here then are Dunn and Norton’s five principles:

1.       Buy Experiences. The authors maintain that spending your money on experiences will, in the long run, create more happiness than purchasing material objects.  Experiences yield social connection and interaction, and therefore lead to more happiness (and better stories) over time.

2.       Make It A Treat. Author Dunn told RadioBoston: “The fundamental barrier to human happiness is our tendency to get used to what we’ve got.” The point is transparent – the more you are exposed to something, the less impact it has.  In her interview with RadioBoston Dunn said people should “think about what they like best, and save it for special occasions, or take a break between indulgences.” The authors encourage us to “turn our favorite things back into treats.”  Observed Barry Schwartz, in his book review for the LA Times: “There isn’t much point to drinking $50 wine if it starts tasting like $10 wine, so keep that good wine for special occasions, no matter how rich you are.” Added Schwartz: “Adaptation to good things may be the biggest challenge we face when it comes to getting satisfaction out of our lives.”

3.       Buy Time. Dunn and Norton urge us to ask one simple question before buying: “How will this purchase change the way I use my time?” The authors explain: “When people focus on their time rather than their money, they act like scientists of happiness, choosing activities that promote their well-being.” Norton told RadioBoston: “Time is such an amazing and valuable resource that we feel so restrained. It can be more motivating than money.” RadioBoston sums up the authors’ intent: “Purchases that lead to more free time, or time spent more productively or with friends and family, are better than material goods.”

4.       Pay Now, Consume Later. Imagine if you walked into a restaurant and paid for the meal right away.  Then, after your drank the wine, and consumed the delicious appetizers, entrée and dessert, you just left.  No bill to reconcile at the end.  How would that make you feel? That’s the basic principle underlying principle #4, which, interestingly enough, is the opposite of how we use credit cards (consume now, pay later). Explained Schwartz: “When we separate the moment of purchase from the moment of consumption, we gain in two ways: we separate the costs from the benefits in time. And we get to savor the thing or experience we’ve purchased in the time period between the moment of purchase and its consummation.” So the next time you buy tickets for a concert or a play, focus on the joy of anticipation.

5.       Invest in Others.  It’s a familiar recommendation, and the research in this area is sound: people feel better when they spend on others, rather than themselves. But not if we’re pressured to spend (as in charitable donations) – that often makes us feel worse. And the research says that these principles are true across cultures and are detectable “among children before the age of two,” according to the authors. 

So the next time you spend some money, make sure it’s Happy Money. You’ll be richer for it. 

Should we still be celebrating Independence Day?

I’d vote yes, and I suppose that most of our fellow 316 million Americans would agree. Having said that, it seems to me that July 4^th is more about celebrating freedom (and the principles underlying the American story) than about achieving independence. The link is unassailable – freedom, equality and democracy are indeed a direct result of our bid for independence, some 237 years ago, but watching Old Glory wave in the breeze, I think more about our place in the world pantheon than our battle with Britain two centuries ago. 

Yet, as I drive both on and off Daniel Island, and past the resplendent line of Old Glories, I can’t help but wonder why we don’t spend similar time celebrating our connection with the world. In the history of man, some 115 billion people have been born, we among them, and of that vast sum, 7.1 billion people are here among us.  We are, in the final analysis, fellow travelers on the same voyage – all members of the World community. Each one of us, when asked where we’re from, can answer the same: Planet Earth.  We are all members of the same tribe, and though, as a group, we have not fought together for independence (from, perchance, Venus?), we are linked together in a special way. 

Yet, amid that reality, nationalism (defined as “supporting the aspirations of a single nation” or “devotion and loyalty to one’s own country”) has its limits.  I’m proud to be an American, and feel exceptionally lucky to have been born on American soil, and afforded the opportunity and support that comes with being an American citizen. There’s a reason that people from all over the world continue to flock here.  And while our legislators currently are struggling to do what’s best for the country, the underlying principles remain strong. 

The United States, after all, is the longest running democracy in the history of the world, and while threats persist, witnessing the seamless transition of Presidential power on the front lawn of the Capital (one president sworn in, one waving goodbye from their chopper), we all can feel whole in the notion that the experiment works, that “this nation . . . can endure.”

But, in a larger sense, one could argue that we spend too little time thinking of ourselves as a whole.  As an international community, we do join hands on certain occasions (e.g., Earth Day, International Women’s Day*), but perhaps a bit more time could be devoted to humanism, or globalism, or inter-nationalism. As a member of the animal kingdom, humans seem intent on becoming #1, indeed, all major U.S. systems are based on it (e.g., corporate America, our political system, the world of sports, et al).  Yet being #1 in any arena naturally means there’s a two and a three. Take education. Currently, the US ranks #17 worldwide; yet, if our system meets the necessary criteria for success, then our rank is irrelevant; conversely, if we rank #1, yet fail to meet our students’ needs, our standing in the international community is no cause for celebration. Sure, competition stirs growth, but it also breeds disharmony.

So as we celebrate the 4^th, consider for a moment hanging a World Flag outside of your porch. I’m ordering mine today. 

 
* according to online sources, there are dozens of “international days.” These include, of course, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and April Fool’s Day (yes, they’re celebrated worldwide) plus less notable entrants: Thinking Day (February 22^nd), Friendship Day (August 5^th), International Talk-Like-a-Pirate Day (September 19^th) and Inventor’s Day” (in 1983, President Ronald Reagan declared February 11^th as National Inventor’s Day – Thomas Edison’s birthday, for those keeping score).  In addition, the UN’s 39 international days include: International Day of Peace (September 21^st), International Day for the Eradication of Poverty (October 17^th), International Day for Tolerance (November 16^th) and Human Rights Day (December 10^th).

Are you an introvert, an extrovert or, perchance, an ambivert?

I have a confession. Before last week, I had never heard the word “ambivert.”  Apparently, it’s been around since the 1920s (where have I been?) and is now gaining some verbal traffic thanks to a recent study that asked: are extroverts the best salespeople? (note: one in nine U.S. jobs is in sales).

Conventional wisdom insists that in the field of sales, it’s the extrovert – that outgoing, vibrant personality – that excels.  But a new study led by organizational psychologist Adam Grant (Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania) upends that decades-long notion and forcefully claims that ambiverts – people who skillfully blend the art of talking, with the art of listening – are the best salespeople.

And he has the data to prove it.  Grant gathered three months of sales records from 300 salespeople (each one took an extensive personality assessment beforehand) to see which personality did the best. His findings?  The ambiverts finished on top – in a three-month period, they made 24% more in sales revenue than introverts, and 32% more in revenue than extroverts. 

Said the study abstract:

“Despite the widespread assumption that extraverts are the most productive salespeople . . . ambiverts achieve greater sales productivity than extraverts or introverts do. Because they naturally engage in a flexible pattern of talking and listening, ambiverts are likely to express sufficient assertiveness and enthusiasm to persuade and close a sale but are more inclined to listen to customers’ interests and less vulnerable to appearing too excited or overconfident.”

In analyzing the study results, David DiSalvo, writing for Forbes, pointed out:

“Perhaps even more surprising, Grant found that the two extreme personality types pulled in roughly the same percentage of sales.  Being highly extroverted wasn’t even a plus when compared against the personality type we generally think of as the worst candidate for high-performance sales.

“The reason for these results may simply be that extroverts pour it on a bit too thick for their own good, and this tendency negates any charismatic advantages they might otherwise enjoy. For example, their overflowing enthusiasm for the sale can cause them to not listen closely enough to the needs of the customer, and this in turn hurts their chances of closing the sale.”

I must admit, I’ve always paused when I hear friends label themselves, or others, as introverts or extroverts. We are, after all, rather complex human beings, and boiling our entire personality down to a single word seems, how shall we say, so imprecise. Now that a third classification is on the board, perhaps we’ll start to break away from these labels. 

More than that, Grant’s findings open the door for a full scale reassessment – both by sales managers and prospective employees.  Explained Grant, in a story by Phillynews.com: “My findings suggest that less-extroverted people may be missing out on productive careers . . . and hiring managers may be missing out on star performers."

Grant is author of the book “Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success.”

##

Ethics and wealth: is there a link?

Apparently so, according to a series of seven studies that found that people who have the most act the worst. 

Researchers, funded in part of the National Science Foundation, explored whether upper class vs. lower class individuals were most likely to: break the law while driving, take valued goods from others, lie during negotiations, cheat to increase their chances of winning a prize and endorse unethical behavior in a work setting. In each case, wealthier individuals acted the worst. 

Why?  Explained lead researcher Paul Piff of UC Berkeley, as quoted in the at www.nsf.gov: "The relative privilege and security enjoyed by upper-class individuals give rise to independence from others and a prioritization of the self and one's own welfare over the welfare of others--what we call 'greed,”, and greed, the researchers explained “is a robust determinant of unethical behavior."  The report’s authors noted: “Plato and Aristotle deemed greed to be at the root of personal immorality, arguing that greed drives desires for material gain at the expense of ethical standards.”

Piff told www.guardian.com: "If you occupy these higher echelons, you start to see yourself as more entitled, and develop a heightened self-focus. . .  . Your social environment is likely more buffered against the impact of your actions, and you might not perceive the risks of your behavior because you are better resourced, you have the money for lawyers and so on."   Joining Piff in the research were Daniel M. Stancato, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton and Dacher Keltner of UC Berkeley and Stéphane Côté of the University of Toronto.

Here’s a look at the research, conducted both in the field and in the lab. 

Who’s more aggressive on the road? 

Researchers created two scenarios to test whether people who drive more expensive cars take more liberties on the road  (the PNAS report noted: “. . . vehicles are reliable indicators of a person’s social rank and wealth”).  In one study, observers stood near a busy four-way intersection (stop signs on each side) and recorded whether drivers cut off other vehicles by crossing the intersection without waiting their turn (the researchers controlled for time of day, driver’s perceived sex and age). In a second study, observers recorded who was more likely to cut off pedestrians at a crosswalk.  In both cases, according to the PNAS study, upper-class drivers were “significantly more likely” (based on statistical variation) to cut off other vehicles and drive through the crosswalk.

Would you take the candy?

In this study, participants were presented with a jar of individually wrapped candies, to see how much they would take. They were told that the candy was for children in a nearby laboratory, “but you are free to take some if you would like.” Before they were given this directive, participants were “primed” by having them compare their station in life with others. Explained the PNAS report: “Central to our hypothesis, participants in the upper-class rank condition took more candy” (twice as much, in fact) “that would otherwise go to children . . . than did those in the lower-rank condition.”

In a job negotiation, would you reveal critical data?  

In the next study, participants assumed the role of a boss and were asked to negotiate a salary with a job candidate.  Each participant was fed information about the job, including the fact that the job was about to be eliminated.  What did the researchers find?  That a person’s attitude toward greed (based on two independent measures) was directly related to how truthful they were in the negotiation. In other words, those who had the most positive attitudes toward greed were less likely to tell the candidate that the job was going to be eliminated. 

Would you inflate your numbers?

To test the link between greed and cheating, participants were asked to report their total score from a series of dice rolls, and were told that the higher their score, the more likely they would be to claim a prize (note: the participants didn’t actually roll the dice, instead they were presented with a series of numbers, that appeared to be random). What happened? No surprise – participants who placed a higher value on greed also lied about their total score. Said the PNAS report: “These results further suggest that more favorable attitudes toward greed among members of the upper class explain, in part, their unethical tendencies.”

##

Who’s happier, older people or younger people?

The two research findings that I’m about to share may, at first, appear contradictory.  We shall explain. 

·         Research finding #1: older people are happier than they’ve ever been (indeed, people across all generations become happier as they age); and

·         Research finding #2: younger people, on an absolute level, are happier than their older counterparts.

How can this be?  The reason, of course, is that how happy you are (the term of art is “psychological well-being”) has more to do with when you were born, and not how old you are.

Researchers from NIH, the National Institute on Aging and Florida State University analyzed thousands of records, on people born from 1885 to the present, and arrived at this significant conclusion: a person’s overall well-being is related to what generation they grew up in. 

Lindsay Abrams, writing for The Atlantic, explains: “People born at the turn of the 20th century, between 1885 and 1925, started out lowest on the well-being scale. Each successive generation, stretching across almost a century to people born in 1980, had a slightly more positive outlook.” Added Abrams: “This also means that while older adults appear, as a whole, to be the least happy generation, right now they're happier than they've ever been.”

“Psychological well-being,” as defined by researchers, is an overall sense of life satisfaction, one that often translates into life success (i.e., relationships, career, financial).  Explained the researchers: “Life satisfaction increased over the participants’ lifetimes. This trend remained even after factors like health, medication, sex, ethnicity, and education were taken into account.”  Said lead researcher Angelina Sutin, as quoted recently in Time magazine: “Once we accounted for the fact that people grew up in different eras, it turns out, on average, people maintain or increase their sense of well-being as they get older.”

What this new research suggests is that previous findings were flawed when they concluded that age was the reason the elderly have a lower sense of well-being.  Apparently, it has more to do with life experiences, and generational challenges, such as the Great Depression and economic trauma. The Time magazine article pointed out: “People born in 1940, for example, scored nearly 3 times higher on measures of well-being related to the time period immediately preceding the survey (responses to items like ‘I enjoyed life’ and ‘I was happy’), compared to those born in 1900.”

In the same Time article, Sutin offered the following observation: “We assume that all of that loss would make older adults unhappy. It’s harder to see the benefits of aging: feelings of pride for children and grandchildren, a meaningful career, more confidence, wisdom. There are a lot of reasons to be happy in older adulthood, but they may not be as visible as the losses.” When they are, however, it turns out that happiness is one of the benefits that come with age.

Co-authors on this research include Antonio Terracciano, also of Florida State University College of Medicine and a guest researcher at the NIA; Yuri Milaneschi of the National Institute on Aging and VU University Medical Center; and Yang An, Luigi Ferrucci and Alan B. Zonderman of the National Institute on Aging, NIH.

Want to persuade someone? Try this time-tested technique (it’s nearly foolproof)

Christopher Carpenter, Communications Professor at the Western Illinois University, has painstakingly reviewed more than 40 studies on over 20,000 subjects to test the world’s #1 persuasion technique.  The technique is simple, easy to execute, and according to Carpenter’s analysis, consistently effective.     

It’s called BYAF, which stands for “But You Are Free,” and here’s how it works: when you ask someone to do something, add the phrase “but you are free” to the end, as in: “But obviously don’t feel obliged,” or “but of course you are free to do as you like.” 

The psychology behind it is transparent – you’re letting someone know that they have the right to choose.  And despite its simplicity, Carpenter reports that it is extremely effectively, roughly doubling the chances that someone will say yes to the request.

And the actual words you use don't seem to matter. Instead, the key is being face to face with someone, not doing it over the phone, by letter or email (side note: research did support some benefits via email, but significantly less than a face to face encounter).

How often should be use this technique?  Well, don’t over do it, as Melanie Pinola explains, in a piece for lifehacker.com: 

“Obviously, you wouldn't want to use this technique all the time, lest you start looking like someone with passive-aggressive issues (‘Hey, honey, can you take out the garbage? But you are free not to’), but acknowledging the other person's ability to choose could make them feel more empowered (and on your side). It even works on stubborn children and adults sometimes (‘I like this choice best. But you're free to choose another one.’)

Interested in other persuasion techniques?  Check out these two:

Switch to the present tense

Jay Heinrich, author of “Thank You for Arguing: What Aristotle, Lincoln, and Homer Simpson Can Teach Us About the Art of Persuasion,” offers a list of 10 ways to persuade people and ranks “switching to the present tense” as his #1.  The web site sourcesofinsight.com quotes Heinrich, who shares this wonderful example:

“My son George is a master of this essential tool of argument. One morning I found myself stranded in the bathroom, wearing only a towel, with a completely empty tube of toothpaste. I knew the likely perpetrator.

‘George!’ I yelled. ‘Who used up all the toothpaste?’

I heard my 27-year-old’s sarcastic voice on the other side of the door. ‘That’s not the point, is it, Dad?’ George said. ‘The point is, how are we going to keep this from happening again?’

He had me. George lived through my rhetoric research and heard me read aloud from every draft of my book. He knew that the most productive arguments use the future tense, the language of choices and decisions. It works like a charm. When you’re accused of something (past tense) or insulted (present), switch tenses. Talk about how to correct the situation or improve the relationship. That’s the stuff of the future. Aristotle called this kind of persuasion ‘deliberative argument.’ It was his favorite kind of rhetoric, and you can see why. It takes the anger out of confrontations.”

Whisper in the right ear

Believe it or not, this appears to be true.  If you want someone to do something, it’s better to whisper in their right ear than their left, according to three studies by Dr. Luca Tommasi and Daniele Marzoli from the University Gabriele d'Annunzio in Chieti, Italy. The researchers conducted three studies in a nightclub setting, observing listening patterns (right ear vs. left ear) of more than 200 subjects.  In the third study, a woman approached 176 individuals and asked them for a cigarette.  Clubbers were twice as likely to hand over a cigarette if the request was directed at the right ear (regardless if the person asked was a man or a woman).  According to the web site socialservice.tumblr.com:

“These findings confirm previous studies which have found a right-ear preference for attending to and processing verbal stimuli. It is thought that this is because language is preferentially processed by the left side of the brain, which receives its input from the right ear.”

##

7 true or false questions: How much do you know about weight loss?

(part 1 in a series)

Seven questions for you today. Score a perfect 7 and we’ll call you . . . doctor of medicine.  Miss all 7 and we’ll call you . . . less often for advice.  The questions are drawn from an exhaustive analysis published earlier this year in The New England Journal of Medicine (the title of the report: “Myths, Presumptions and Facts about Obesity”).  They scoured the popular literature to evaluate dozens of notions about weight loss. Their central question: are these notions true?  You’re about to find out.

Pencils up, here we go:

Lifestyle changes and long-term weight loss

True or False?  “Small sustained changes in energy intake or expenditure will produce large, long-term weight changes.”  Answer: False.

The commonly held notion – that small sustained lifestyle modifications will yield long-term weight loss – simply doesn’t hold up.  The New England Journal report examined the half-century-old rule “which equates a weight alteration of 1 lb to a 3500 calorie cumulative deficit or increment.” However that rule, according to the report, is “derived from short-term experiments predominately performed in men on very-low-energy diets (under 800 calories per day). Recent studies have shown that individual variability affects changes in body composition in response to changes in energy intake and expenditure, with analyses predicting substantially smaller changes in weight . . . than the 3500 calorie rule does.”

Sexual activity and energy expenditure

True or False? “A bout of sexual activity burns 100-300 calories for each participant.”  Answer: False.

According to the New England Journal report: “A man weighing 154 lbs. would . . . expend approximately 3.5 calories per minute during a stimulation and orgasm session. This level of expenditure is similar to that achieved by walking at a moderate pace (approximately 2.5 miles per hour). Given that the average bout of sexual activity lasts about 6 minutes, a man in his early-to-mid-30s might expend approximately 21 calories during sexual intercourse.” The report adds that watching TV for six minutes would burn seven calories, so “the incremental benefit” is just 14 calories.

Rate of weight loss

True or False? “Large, rapid weight loss is associated with poorer long-term weight loss outcomes, as compared with slow, gradual weight loss.”  Answer: False.

What the research shows: “Within weight-loss trials, more rapid and greater initial weight loss has been associated with lower body weight at the end of long-term follow-up” (16.1% of body weight loss vs. 9.7% with low-energy diets).

Breast-feeding and obesity

True or false? “Breast feeding is protective against obesity.” Answer: False.

Said the New England Journal report: “. . . a randomized controlled trial involving more than 13,000 children who were followed for more than 6 years provided no compelling evidence of an effect of breast-feeding on obesity.” These results stand in opposition to a World Health Organization report that concluded: “Persons who were breast-fed as infants are less likely to be obese later in life.” But the New England Journal explains that the WHO, after its report came out, acknowledged publication bias, rendering the results unsound.  Nonetheless, the report did acknowledge: “Although existing data indicate that breast-feeding does not have important anti-obesity effects in children, it has other important potential benefits for the infant and mother and should therefore be encouraged.”

Setting realistic weight-loss goals
True or False?  “Setting realistic goals for weight loss is important, because otherwise patients will become frustrated and lose less weight.” Answer: False.

Apparently, there is no consistent link “between ambitious goals and progress completion or weight loss.” In fact, the New England Journal report cites several studies which found that more ambitious goals sometimes led to greater weight loss.   In two noteworthy studies, patients changed their goals from “unrealistic” to “realistic,” yet the change failed to improve their overall weight loss.

Diet readiness

True or False? “It is important to assess the stage of change or diet readiness in order to help patients who request weight-loss treatment.” Answer: False.

The question at hand – how ready is the patient, psychologically, to undertake a weight-loss program?  The widely held belief is that unless a patient is ready to go (truly ready), long-term success will be jeopardized.  According to the New England Journal report: “Readiness does not predict the magnitude of weight loss or treatment adherence among persons who sign up for behavioral programs or who undergo obesity surgery.” The authors acknowledge the obvious: “People voluntarily choosing to enter weight-loss programs are, by definition, at least minimally ready to engage in the behaviors required to lose weight.”

Important of Physical Education classes

True or False? “Physical-education classes, in their current form, play an important role in reducing or preventing childhood obesity.”  Answer: False.

A sad, but not entirely unexpected, finding.  Explained the New England Journal report: “Findings in three studies that focused on expanded time in physical education indicated that even though there was an increase in the number of days children attended physical-education classes, the effects on body-mass index were inconsistent across sexes and age groups.” The report adds: “There is almost certainly a level of physical activity (a specific combination of frequency, intensity and duration) that would be effective in reducing or preventing obesity. Whether that level is plausibly achievable in conventional school settings is unknown. . . . ”

##

What motivates people more: envy or admiration?

Don’t sell envy short.  It can be a strong motivating force in our lives.

In study after study, researchers found that when people envy others – as opposed to simply admire them – it motivates us to do better. But there’s one cautionary note: we must choose our heroes wisely. We must focus on people who are doing just a little bit better than us, not those outside of our reach.

The interplay between envy and admiration is an interesting one.  Both come into play when we view another’s person’s success, but recent research maintains that these feelings are strikingly different in their power to move us.  A PsyBlog entry, published at spring.org.uk, quotes from a recent paper by van de Ven et al (2011):

“. . . being envious of another's achievements is painful. To avoid that pain we translate envy into admiration. In other words: we admit defeat. The other person's achievements are beyond us; we must resign ourselves to being inferior. Unfortunately once we've translated envy into admiration, we lose the motivational power of that envy.”

When it comes to envy, it’s important to note that, in terms of motivation, we’re talking about “benign envy,” not “malicious envy.”  The difference is whether you feel that the person’s success is deserved. In other words, malicious envy (a sense that a person’s success is undeserved) is most often a destructive force, leading people to strike out in a bid to “bring someone down.” But benign envy, properly channeled, can help us grow and reach new heights.

A second article at PsyBlog (spring.org.uk) explained four ways in which benign envy is good for you:

1.       Benign envy motivates, “as long as you compare yourself to the right person,” according to the PsyBlog article.

2.       Benign envy feels good.  The PsyBlog entry points out: “When we see other people doing better than us it can give us hope, which makes up feel good.”

3.       Benign envy makes you more creative, because when we compare ourselves to others, our performance improves, according to a 2007 Johnson & Stapel study on creativity.

4.       Benign envy makes you smarter. PsyBlog cites a 1999 study by Blanton et al which found that “students who compared themselves with others tended to do better in school.”

Said Simon Latham, author of "The Science of Sin: The Psychology of the Seven Deadlies (and why they are so good for you)" (as quoted in PsyBlog):

“If you have the good fortune to observe a skilled performer, you watch, you learn and so you perform better. . . . Envy can change your expectations about what it is possible to achieve.”

Other research findings:

·         Envy vs. admiration – a study out of Tilburg University (Tilburg, The Netherlands) concluded that benign envy was a motivating force “only when people thought self-improvement was attainable. When participants though self-improvement was hard . . . [that] led to more admiration and no motivation to do better.”

·         Do superstars motivate us?  Again, only when their success seems attainable. A study authored by Penelope Lockwood and Ziva Kunda (University of Waterloo) found that “Relevant superstars provoke self-enhancement and inspiration when their success seems attainable but self-deflation when it seems unattainable.”

##

Do you have trouble remembering people's names?

If so, you’re not alone.  Extensive research supports the notion that people’s names are among the most difficult words to remember. And theories abound.  The leading candidate is that names are arbitrary and meaningless, that is, a person’s name is an isolated element with no unique associative qualities (contrast this with, say, a person’s career or hobby).  This would explain why it’s easier to remember nicknames, since they often are linked to particular traits or events.

The truth is, a person’s name generally provides few clues about their appearance or their personality.  It may hint at their age, or their birthplace, but names typically provide weak semantic hooks. And a 2010 study by Zenzi Griffin supported this notion, saying that “several factors . . . conspire to make personal names particularly difficult to retrieve.”

 
One study (conducted by Gillian Cohen and Dorothy Faulkner) provided participants with fake names and biographies, then asked them to recall information about those people.  Here’s what people remembered most (according to an article written by Maia Szalavitz for healthland.time.com):

     ·         Jobs: 69%
     ·         Hobbies: 68%
     ·         Home towns: 62%
     ·         First names: 31%
     ·         Last names: 30%

Faces are a different matter altogether.  They’re just easier to remember.  But why?  An article in www.oldandsold.com offers these compelling reasons:

1.       Our visual memory is stronger than our aural memory;

2.       You hear a person’s name just once, but see their face over and over (every glance is a new impression);

3.       People often don’t pronounce their name clearly (said the article at www.oldandsold.com: “Don’t blame yourself for forgetting something you never knew”; and

4.       Lack of attention.

Remembering names . . . is a “mighty good investment”

Perhaps the most worthwhile advice comes from www.oldandsold.com which reminds us that “attention to new names is a mighty good investment.”  The article counsels us to “have a strong and definite purpose in mind to grasp and retain the name of every person you meet.”

How then do we go about improving our skills?

The most popular technique – or at least the one most commonly cited – is memory association, that is, forming an immediate association between the person’s name and  a unique characteristic (the person’s appearance, their job, their clothing, etc). And repetition also works – if you repeat someone’s name back after you are introduced, and immediately use it in conversation, you’ll have a better shot at remembering their name. 

Additional guidance comes from www.oldandsold.com:
 
·         Mental picture: “Every time you meet a stranger, say to yourself: ‘I’ll know you the next time I see you.’ Then associate the name with the face that goes with it. Use any unusual feature as a peg to hang the name on. . . . Make a mental picture of the person’s face, select some notable features for special attention (anything that’s unique or distinctive). . . .

·         Attention and Intention: “Be prepared to make a good, clear mental impression for your mental photograph. . . . When introduced, focus all your attention on the name, hear it, speak it, write it, see it, taste it, smell it, feel it with a grip that never lets go, and ten to one you will never forget it.”

Steve Ferber is author of “21 Rules to Live By,” available at Amazon.com. Reviews at www.21rules.com.  

##

Is there a link between racial stereotyping and creativity?

An international team of researchers, in a rather unique study, has concluded that racial stereotyping (that is, the tendency for some people to stereotype people, based on race) inhibits creativity.  Their findings have broad implications, not just for enhancing social tolerance, but for helping people maximize their own creativity. 
 
At the heart of the study is the term “racial essentialism,” defined as “the view that racial groups possess underlying essences that represent deep-rooted, unalterable traits and abilities,” according to an article published on www.latindiscussion.com.  In other words, racial essentialism represents a conventional mindset, a mindset not taken to consider alternate possibilities. 

But how does this relate to creativity? Researchers found that racial stereotyping and creative stagnation have a common mechanism: categorical thinking.  Explained lead researcher Carmit Tadmor of Tel Aviv University (as quoted in an article in Psychological Science): “Although these two concepts concern very different outcomes, they both occur when people fixate on existing category information and conventional mindsets.”

The fundamental conclusion, according to the article in latindiscussion.com: “Together, these studies suggest that essentialism exerts its negative effects on creativity by changing how people think, as opposed to changing what they think.”

An article in psypost.org added the following:

“The research also suggests that essentialist beliefs are fairly malleable. While there are many different aspects that still need to be explored, Tadmor and colleagues speculate that it might be possible to use these findings to devise an intervention program that reduces racial essentialist beliefs, thereby leading participants not only to become more socially tolerant but also to unleash their creative potential in the process.”

In their study abstract, Tadmor and colleagues explained their central thesis: “Individuals who believe that racial groups have fixed underlying essences use stereotypes more than do individuals who believe that racial categories are arbitrary and malleable social-political constructions. Would this essentialist mind-set also lead to less creativity?”

To study this, the researchers explored participants’ beliefs about racial essentialism, then had them take a popular test of creativity called the Remote Associates Test. According to the psypost.org story: “The participants were given three distinct words and they had to identify a single target word that linked the three words together. So, for example, given the words ‘manners’, ‘round’, and ‘tennis’, the correct answer would be ‘table’. The researchers found that participants primed with an essentialist viewpoint were less creative, solving significantly fewer of the word problems correctly than participants in the other two groups.”

In the research, Tadmor was joined by colleagues Melody M. Chao of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology; Ying-yi Hong of Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University and Beijing Normal University; and Jeffrey T. Polzer of Harvard University.

##

Success in life: what personality trait shines the brightest?

It might just be grit (and if you want to test yours, try the 12 question grit survey, at the end of this column). 

In one study of West Point cadets, as reported by publicradio.org, “a cadet’s grit score was the best predictor of success in the rigorous summer training program known as ‘Beast Barracks’. Grit mattered more than intelligence, leadership ability or physical fitness.”  Study authors were quoted as saying: “Grit may be as essential as talent to high accomplishment.”

In related studies (surveys were given to Ivy League undergraduates, teachers, salespeople and National Spelling Bee finalists), the personality trait of grit (perseverance, persistence) demonstrated that grit was as essential as intelligence for human achievement and success.  And, surprising to some, there was no link between grit and IQ – in other words, more intelligent people do not necessarily have more grit, and vice versa.

The stirring question now becomes: can grit be taught? 

Lead author and chief study architect Angela Duckworth believes that it can, and in a piece published by publicradio.org, Duckworth posed this critical question: “Which experiences do we give kids to get them in the direction of more grit and not less?”

Duckworth, now an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania (she received a BA in Neurobiology from Harvard and a Masters in Neuroscience from Oxford), focuses her research on what often are called “noncognitive skills,” that is, traits other than intelligence that predict academic and professional achievement. 

Her current research, according to an article published at mentorcoach.com, “centers on self-control (the ability to regulate emotions, thoughts, and feelings in the service of valued goals) and grit (perseverance and sustained interest in long-term goals).”  The article quotes Duckworth as saying: “I am particularly interested in the subjective experience of exerting self-control and grit - and conscious strategies which facilitate adaptive behavior in the face of temptation, frustration, and distraction."

Interestingly, according to this same mentorcoach.com article, Duckworth believes that more free time (not more rigorous study) would improve student concentration and effort.  The article quoted Duckworth as saying: “. . . paradoxically and wonderfully, we should free up more time for play, running around and just enjoying childhood.”

Duckworth defines grit as "sticking with things over the very long term until you master them," according to the publicradio.org article, to which Duckworth added: “The gritty individual approaches achievement as a marathon; his or her advantage is stamina."  One of Duckworth’s research goals is to “sharpen insights" about the psychological barriers that prevent well-prepared students from completing degrees -- and to test interventions that might help students overcome those barriers.

##

 

---

The Grit Test – 12-item Grit Scale

Directions for taking the Grit Scale: Please respond to the following 12 items. Be honest – there are no right or wrong answers!

1. I have overcome setbacks to conquer an important challenge.
q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

2. New ideas and projects sometimes distract me from previous ones.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

3. My interests change from year to year.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

4. Setbacks don’t discourage me.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

5. I have been obsessed with a certain idea or project for a short time but later lost interest.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

6. I am a hard worker.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

7. I often set a goal but later choose to pursue a different one.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

8. I have difficulty maintaining my focus on projects that take more than a few months to complete.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

9. I finish whatever I begin.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

10. I have achieved a goal that took years of work.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

11. I become interested in new pursuits every few months.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

12. I am diligent.

q Very much like me
q Mostly like me
q Somewhat like me
q Not much like me
q Not like me at all

Scoring:

1. For questions 1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 12 assign the following points:
5 = Very much like me
4 = Mostly like me
3 = Somewhat like me
2 = Not much like me
1 = Not like me at all

2. For questions 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 11 assign the following points:

1 = Very much like me
2 = Mostly like me
3 = Somewhat like me
4 = Not much like me
5 = Not like me at all

Add up all the points and divide by 12. The maximum score on this scale is 5 (extremely gritty), and the lowest scale on this scale is 1 (not at all gritty). 

Source: Duckworth, A.L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M.D., & Kelly, D.R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1087-1101.

 

Can a test in preschool predict life success?

The classic marshmallow test may soon be mush. For 40 years it’s been the litmus test for predicting life success, but a new experiment threatens to upend its reign.  Let’s review.

The marshmallow experiment was created by Stanford professor Walter Mischel in the 1960s and though it may appear simplistic, it has changed the way that educators and psychologists view life success. Here’s how it works: a preschool is given a single marshmallow and told that they are free to eat it right away OR if they can wait for a little while they will be given a second marshmallow.  What’s a 3-to-5 year old to do? 

Evaluating the literature, Drake Bennett of Business Week recently wrote: “Tracking the kids over time, Mischel found that the ability to hold out in this seemingly trivial exercise had real and profound consequences. As they matured and became adults, the kids who had shown the ability to wait got better grades, were healthier, enjoyed greater professional success, and proved better at staying in relationships – even decades after they took the test. They were, in short, better at life . . . . The lesson is that it’s not just intelligence that matters, but self-control and patience and being able to tame one’s impulses – from the desire to eat the marshmallow to the desire to blow off an exam or have an affair.”

The new research, out of the University of Rochester, threatens to roast Mischel’s work.  In a creative series of experiments they found that the ability to delay gratification wasn’t simply an innate ability. Instead, it’s greatly influenced by the stability of one’s environment.  Explained lead researcher Celeste Kidd, as quoted in a University of Rochester press release this fall:

"Our results definitely temper the popular perception that marshmallow-like tasks are very powerful diagnostics for self-control capacity.” Celeste Kidd is a doctoral candidate in brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester and co-authored the study with Richard Aslin and Holly Palmeri. 

Added co-author Aslin: "We know that to some extent, temperament is clearly inherited, because infants differ in their behaviors from birth. But this experiment provides robust evidence that young children's action are also based on rational decisions about their environment."

In challenging the age-old marshmallow test, Kidd and her colleagues prepped the preschoolers by cleverly creating two unique environment, one reliable, one unreliable. Here’s how they did it: the preschoolers were given a drawing task and a set of old, used crayons, and worn-out stickers.  One group (the unreliable group) was told that, in a moment, an adult would return with a batch of new crayons. But when the adult returned, they apologized and said they had no fresh crayons for them. A bit later, these same students were told that an adult would soon return with a new batch of stickers. Same result – when the adult returned, they apologized for having none.  By contrast, in the reliable group, the adult returned with fresh crayons and shiny new stickers, as they had promised.

What happened?

The researchers were shocked at the results, which were so strong that they abandoned a larger field test.  The results were that definitive. The preschoolers in the unreliable group waited an average of 3 minutes before eating the single marshmallow; the preschoolers in the reliable group waited an average of 12 minutes (nine out of the 14 kids in the reliable condition held out the full 15 minutes for a second marshmallow, while only one of the 14 in the unreliable condition did).

Bottom line: the researchers maintain that preschoolers, young as they are, are fully capable of making rational decisions.  So a person’s innate ability to delay gratification (linked, per 40 years of research, to life success) may be uprooted by an unstable environment. One can imagine a child who grows up in an unsettled household. While they may possess an innate ability to delay gratification, they might also grab that first marshmallow . . . while they can.

* Lead researcher Kidd cautions parents: “Don't do the marshmallow test on your kitchen table and conclude something about your child. It especially would not work with a parent, because your child has all sorts of strong expectations about what a person who loves them very much is likely to do." Kidd’s remarks were contained in the University of Rochester press release.

##