Food preference & personality: How strong a link?

Food preference & personality: How strong a link?

Can you trust a man who doesn’t like chocolate?

Will the smell of jasmine improve athletic performance?

What foods are considered aphrodisiacs?

If you prefer coffee over tea, what does that say about you?

Can green apples help ease the pain of migraines?

It’s undeniable, according to researchers and medical professionals – there’s a strong link between food preferences, personality and biology.

One of the foremost experts is Alan Hirsch, M.D, founder and neurological director of the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, and author of “What’s Your Food Sign: How to Use Food Clues to Find Lasting Love.”  In a far-ranging online Q&A, Hirsch revealed the following, based on his Foundation’s more-than-200 research studies: 

·         Aphrodisiacs – Said Hirsch: “For men, a combination of lavender and pumpkin pie, doughnut & black licorice, and pumpkin pie and doughnut; for women, Good & Plenty & cucumber, baby powder, and lavender & pumpkin pie.” Hirsch added: “The greatest inhibition for women is cherry and charcoal barbeque meat.”

One questioner asked Hirsch if she should put pumpkin pie on the Valentine’s table, to which Hirsch replied: “If your aim is to induce sexual arousal, lavender and pumpkin pie increase sexual arousal, but you should also be aware that every single odor that we testing increased sexual arousal in men.”  Later, one questioner asked Hirsch: “My Mom always told me that you can’t trust a guy who doesn’t like chocolate. Any truth?”  Answered Hirsch: “Our studies have suggested that you probably can’t trust any guy.”

·         Cravings – Hirsch explained: “Cravings may indicate underlying changes in mood state. At different times in the menstrual cycle, women crave chocolate especially when they feel mildly dysphoric. Possibly this is because chocolate raises brain serotonin levels, like a mini Prozac.”

·         Chocoholics – Hirsch was asked: “What does it say about someone’s personality if they are a severe chocoholic?” Said Hirsch: “We don’t know because too many people are chocoholics. However, if you prefer dark chocolate, you tend to be more extroverted.” 

·         Coffee vs. Tea – “Those who prefer coffee (over tea) are responsible, ambitious, and aggressive. . . . Tea lovers tend to prefer to be alone and at home,” said Hirsch, who later added: “Green tea lovers are outgoing, flirtatious, are more romantically compatible with those who prefer lemonade or decaf-iced tea.”

What does your coffee say about you?

A host of studies confirms the link between coffee and personality.  One recent observational study (of 1,000 coffee drinkers), led by clinical psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula, found a direct link between personality type and coffee preference.  Her findings, in brief, as reported by Emily Waters (in an article at www.psychcentral.com):

·         Black coffee? old school, purist;

·         Latte drinkers? comfort seekers, people pleasers, open book;

·         Frozen/blended coffee drinks? socially bold, trendsetters;

·         Decaf/soy milk/very specifically ordered coffee?  controlling, obsessive, perfectionist;

·         Instant coffee?  laid back, procrastinate, traditional in some ways.

Similar links were found by Judi James and James Moore, in their book “The You Code.” A report at www.hubpages.com summarized their findings: 

·         Black coffee?  Sharp, neat, to the point, minimalists;

·         Espresso? Experienced, exciting, energetic, fast talkers, moody;

·         Cappuccino? cute, loving, warm, passionate, caring, creative, honest, kind, hard working;

·         Latte? super laid back, balm, supportive in a relationship, indecisive;

·         Mocha? romantics, affectionate, compassionate, insightful, can be unreliable;

·         Frappucino? adventurous, make friends easily, often life of the party;

·         Decaf Soy Milk? attention seeker, self-righteous, can be high maintenance.

The Power of Aroma?

At www.scienceofsmell.com, (the web site for Hirsch’s Foundation), several studies are cited which demonstrate the power of aroma.  Here are two examples?  

·         Jasmine Aroma – “Our team has found that individuals’ reaction times are faster when exposed to jasmine aroma than when exposed to no odor at all. The results indicate that jasmine may be useful in enhancing athletic performance and facilitating physical therapy and rehabilitation.”

·         Migraines – “Our research has found that headache patients who find the scent of green apple to be pleasant experience a significant reduction in the severity of their migraines upon inhaling the fragrance.”

##

Want to become more persuasive?

Want to become more persuasive?

Improve your eye contact.

Want to expand your friend circle?  Enhance your chance of getting a promotion? Improve your eye contact.

Learning to use your eyes – not just to see, but to communicate – is a critical life skill (yet one we’re rarely taught). And worries grow that current societal trends – more time glancing at the Smartphone, less time making eye contact with others – may interfere with long-term relationship development (more on that developing story, in future columns).

How important is eye contact?  A legion of studies link eye contact to respect, sincerity, confidence and credibility. And eyes often reveal more to the listener than words or facial expressions. 

In one study, in which verbal and nonverbal signals contradicted one another, people were five times more likely to believe the nonverbal signals. In another study, in which individuals were asked to read emotions from photographs (individuals were shown either the whole face or just the eyes), “seeing the eyes alone produced significantly better performance than seeing the mouth alone, and was as informative as the rest of the face,” according to an article in PsyBlog, at www.spring.org.uk.

Other research findings: 

·         Standing your ground – According to Sue Shellenbarger, in an online piece for the Wall Street Journal: “Prolonged eye contact during a debate or disagreement can signal that you're standing your ground.” On a related note, one executive, after viewing a video of himself in presentations, noticed that he “instinctively . . . would avoid eye contact” when he was uncertain about a topic (subsequent training enabled him to break this habit).

·         Connection time – In groups, it’s recommended that people look directly at another person for about 3-5 seconds, but when it’s one-to-one the recommended time increases to 7-10 seconds. In her article for the Wall Street Journal, Shellenbarger noted: “Adults make eye contact between 30% and 60% of the time in an average conversation, according to the communications-analytics company Quantified Impressions. But the Austin, Texas, company says people should be making eye contact 60% to 70% of the time to create a sense of emotional connection, according to its analysis of 3,000 people speaking to individuals and groups.”

·         Benefits of strong eye contact – A group called Conversation Aid, cited in an article by Michigan State University Extension, explains these major benefits:

a.       “Increased eye contact is associated with credibility and dominance;”

b.      “Lack of contact and blinking are interpreted as submissive;” and

c.       High status people tend to look longer at people they’re talking to, compared with others.  

·         Cultural differences – Not every culture, of course, encourages more eye contact. The PsyBlog article points out that “In many Eastern and some Caribbean cultures, meeting another's eyes can be rude. Asians are more likely than Westerners to regard a person who makes eye contact as angry or unapproachable, says a 2013 study in the online scientific journal PLOS ONE.” And PsyBlog adds: “Westerners do not have the monopoly on high levels of eye contact . . . In some Arab countries people often look much more intently into each other’s eyes than many Westerners would.”

How do I increase my eye contact?

Here are a few key recommendations, crafted by Steven Aitchison, at www.stevenaitchison.co.uk:

1.       Talking to an individual – Aitchison recommends breaking eye contact every 5 seconds or so, and adds: “When breaking the eye contact, don’t look down as this might indicate the ending of your part of the conversation. Instead, look up or to the side as if you’re remembering something.  Try it just now: don’t move your head and think about the first time you started school.  You will notice your eyes might move up or to the side as you try to remember this.  So when your listener sees this they will think you are trying to remember something and keep on listening to you.”

2.       Listening to someone – Naturally, Aitchison cautions against staring (it makes the talker uncomfortable) and therefore recommends “The Triangle” – that is, “look at one eye for about 5 seconds, look at the other eye for 5 seconds and then look at the mouth for 5 seconds and keep on rotating in this way.” He adds: “If you feel you are staring at them, move to their other features such as their lips, their cheeks, their nose and then back to their eyes.”

##

What parenting technique should be dropped from the tool kit?

What parenting technique should be dropped from the tool kit?

The research could not be more clear.  A new book, pulling together four decades of research on this parenting technique, shows that this method, while still widely used, has been linked to a host of negative long-term consequences. Research maintains that this technique slows mental development, interferes with language development, promotes weaker emotional ties between parent and child and increases the risk of aggressive behavior later in life.

The technique is familiar to us all – as children, we probably experienced it; as older parents, we might have used it; as current parents, we might be using it now.  One recent study found that over 50% of parents still use this technique.  Other research, referenced in the book by Murray Straus, Emily Douglas and Rose Anne Medeiros, said that roughly 90% of U.S. parents still use it. 

The technique, of course, is spanking.  And the research, from 32 countries, points in only one direction.  Noted Straus, as quoted at psyblog:

“More than 20 nations now prohibit spanking by parents. There is an emerging consensus that this is a fundamental human right for children. The United Nations is asking all nations to prohibit spanking. Never spanking will not only reduce the risk of delinquency and mental health problems, it also will bring to children the right to be free of physical attacks in the name of discipline, just as wives gained that human right a century and a quarter ago.”

Why is spanking still in vogue?  In 1968, a U.S. national survey found that 94% of U.S. parents believed that spanking is sometimes necessary; that number dropped to 70% in 2010.  But still, 70%?

It’s easy to see why it’s still around. It works. Plain and simple. It stops the undesired behavior, both immediately and, most probably, for the next period of time. But here’s the crazy part: it’s no more effective than the other eight methods of discipline (as outlined in the Dimensions of Discipline Inventory) which include time outs and denial of privileges.  Plus, of course, these other methods aren’t associated with long-term drawbacks.

Author, professor and researcher Michael MacKenize (Columbia University School of Social Work) told the NY Times: “Spanking does make the kid stop. . . . It gives the immediate feedback that it’s working. But the goal is to have kids regulate themselves over time. And in that, spanking fails.” Along these lines, author Kim Oliver, in a piece for psychcentral.com, noted that “the Latin root of discipline means ‘to teach,’ while the Latin root of punishment means ‘to inflict pain’.”

So, why does spanking persist? 

It appears, from all accounts, that parents are relying more on their personal history (e.g., “I was spanked and I turned out OK, so what’s the big deal?”) than the research.   But times are changing.  In their book “The Primordial Violence: Spanking Children, Psychological Development, Violence, and Crime,” Straus and his co-authors point out:

“[Parents] who believe that a good hard spanking is sometimes necessary dismiss the idea that spanking is a form of violence.  Before the largely feminist-based effort to end violence against women, if a husband occasionally slapped his wife, it was considered a family fight, not family violence.” Later the authors add: “. . . the longitudinal studies summarized in Chapter 19 show that the more a child was spanked, the greater the probability that he or she will approve of or engage in violence and other crime later in life.”

Developmental psychologist Elizabeth Gershoff, to the Huffington Post: “There's just no evidence that spanking is good for kids. . . . Spanking models aggression as a way of solving problems, that you can hit people and get what you want."

Added author and Ph.D. Darcia Narvaez, writing for Psychology Today: “Spanking does not convey positive guidance on how to behave in a particular situation . . . ” and “it destroys trust. Children trust their parents just a little less. They build a self-protective shield around themselves in terms of relationships generally. Children increasingly mistrust the motives of others and become more threat reactive. It leads to aggressive expectations—they are ready to aggress first before they are aggressed against.”

##