Are you a perfectionist?

If so, we have some good news for you.  Two new books highlight the benefits of perfectionism and offer ways to harness its power. The first, called “The Perfectionist’s Handbook,” was authored by self-proclaimed perfectionist Jeff Szymanski who reviewed 20 years of research to frame his thesis.  The second, “Better By Mistake,” shares the healthiest sides of perfectionism.    

In the marketplace, as well as the kitchen table, perfectionism tends to take a bad rap.  Margarita Tartakovsky, associate editor at Psych Central (psychcentral.com), in reviewing Szymanski’s book, acknowledges that perfectionism can lead to anxiety, stress and paralysis.  But Tartakovsky, quoting Szymanski, says that “the problem with perfectionism isn’t in wanting things to be perfect, it’s in what we do with that desire.” Quoting Szymanski:

“. . . Research on perfectionism has found that striving to achieve personal standards (your intention) isn’t where the problem occurs. Instead, people run into trouble when they become preoccupied with making mistakes and doubting themselves excessively. These ineffective strategies are, in fact, what get in the way of reaching our desired outcomes.”

Tartakovsky explains: “Instead of eliminating your perfectionism, Szymanski helps you determine a way to use it so it actually works for you.”

Author Alina Tugend, in “Better By Mistake,” strongly supports the notion that there’s such a thing as healthy perfectionism.  Psych Central associate editor Therese Borchard both reviewed Tugend’s work and shared some of her own perfectionist tendencies.  In her blog for psychcentral.com, Borchard said: “Although perfectionism undoubtedly brings me suffering and pain, I’ve come to appreciate the snobby part of my personality because it also bears gifts, especially over time.”

Borchard defines adaptive perfectionists as those “who have perfectionist tendencies without having those tendencies rule, or ruin, their lives.”  Conversely, maladaptive perfectionists “need to be the best at everything, and if they make a mistake, it’s a crisis. . . . They have to hit all their marks all the time. Their need for perfectionism can sabotage their own success.”

If you’re a perfectionist, don’t fight it.  Instead, turn to Szymanski and Tugend for pathways to success.

-------------

Afterword, on the drawbacks to perfectionism, from psychologist Mel Schwartz:

“In our culture we move relentlessly toward greater emphasis on achievement and goal attainment. We ask our children what their grade was, not what they learned. We tend to measure our lives in terms of success and achievement and lose perspective on what it may mean to live well. This ruptures any sense of balance in our lives. We seem to lose the capacity for wonder and awe. Could you imagine looking at a magnificent rainbow and complaining that the width of one color was imperfect because it was narrower than the other colors? Not only would that be ridiculous, we’d also be ruining the splendor of the moment. And yet that is exactly what we do when we judge ourselves for our imperfections. We forget that as humans we’re part of nature, as well. As such, we would benefit if we came into acceptance of the natural flow of life, which by the way, happens to be imperfect.”

We know how intelligent you are, but how curious are you?

Think about life’s most eminent skills.  Chances are, curiosity won’t make your top 10, but new research out of Europe maintains that curiosity is a critical personality trait, and not just in the classroom, in the workplace as well.  And Jonathan Mugan (author of “The Curiosity Cycle”) would quite agree, maintaining that as technology advances, human beings must strive to improve the most unique of human qualities: curiosity and creativity.

Let’s first step inside the classroom.  For decades, just two personality traits have been linked to academic achievement – intelligence and conscientiousness.  But research published last fall out of the University of Edinburgh has added a third: curiosity.  The research revealed that curiosity and conscientiousness (that is, the inclination to go to class and do your homework), when combined, have as significant an effect on performance as intelligence.  The study’s authors conclude: “Our results highlight that a ‘hungry mind’ is a core determinant of individual differences in academic achievement.” So it’s no surprise that lead author Sophie von Stumm encourages teachers to “inspire curiosity” in their students, “to make them engaged and independent learners.”

Stumm also draws a tie-line to the working world.  In an article published by the Association of Psychological Science, Stumm explained: "It's easy to hire someone who has the done the job before and hence, knows how to work the role. . . . But it's far more interesting to identify those people who have the greatest potential for development, i.e. the curious ones."

Now back to Mugan, whose new book “The Curiosity Cycle” seeks to highlight both the role and importance of curiosity. Mugan’s background is in psychology and computer science and he offered these insights in a Q&A interview with singularity.com:

• What robots can’t do (yet) – Said Mugan: “We humans have brawn, brains, and dexterity. In the workplace, machines first replaced our brawn. They then started to replace the primitive aspects of our thinking ability such as number crunching. We have highly precise manufacturing and surgical robots, but we still don’t have affordable robots that can manipulate objects in unstructured environments. This leaves us with the creativity needed for the arts, sciences, and high-level strategic decisions, and the dexterous ability needed for tasks like hairstyling.”
• Skills we should de-emphasize – Mugan explained: “With the steady improvement in computer intelligence, some skills such as memorization should be de-emphasized, while others such as creativity are becoming more important. With smart computers like Watson being able to answer arbitrary questions of fact, the asking of insightful questions becomes more important.”
• Socks and shoes (and why it takes kids so long to put them on) – In the Q&A interview, Mugan quickly stepped through the evolution of cognitive development.  His synthesis: “In the mid-20th century, Jean Piaget proposed a now-famous theory of cognitive development whereby children constructed new knowledge from previous knowledge, and their development progressed in stages. More recently, Leslie Cohen proposed an information processing theory of cognitive development in which children are endowed with a domain-general information processing system that they use to bootstrap knowledge. Jean Mandler refers to this information processing that children do to construct knowledge as ‘perceptual meaning analysis.’ Developmental psychologists have also described learning as a process of active exploration. Eleanor Gibson proposed that human children are endowed with systems to allow them to explore and learn about the world. She emphasized that it was this exploration that enabled cognitive development. Alison Gopnik stresses that children explore to learn new things while adults are more rigid and exploit previous knowledge. Presumably, this is why it takes young children so incredibly long to put on their socks and shoes.”

So how does one become more curious?  Perhaps by adopting the role of explorer, of a person who consistently examines, investigates and explores.  In short, we need only ask one question:  Why?

Want to be happier? Then just change this one thing . . .

If you want to be happy for the rest of your life . . . change your personality.  That’s the bottom line thesis from a study published by psychologists from England and Australia. Their argument, in brief:

1. Personality is the single largest predictor of life satisfaction.  That is, of all the possible factors which influence our enjoyment of life, personality is the clear #1 (over and above income, marital status, job, possessions, etc.). 
2. So if you want to enjoy life more (think well-being, happiness), your next move might be to re-orient your personality, even before you head to monster.com, eHarmony or your local car dealer.  Explains lead study author Dr. Chris Boyce, from the University of Manchester’s School of Psychological Sciences: "We found that our personalities can and do change over time – something that was considered improbable until now – and that these personality changes are strongly related to changes in our well-being. Compared with external factors, such as a pay raise, getting married or finding employment, personality change is just as likely and contributes much more to improvements in our personal well being."

For decades, the prevailing view in both psychology and economics has been that personality is fixed. The study authors explain: “The traditional perspective in psychology is that personality is relatively enduring and stable – essentially personality has been thought of as fixed, particularly after the age of 30, where it has been said to be ‘set like plaster’ (Costa & McCrae, 1980, 1988). Any apparent change across time was attributed to measurement error.”  But research over the last decade has started change that view, with researchers claiming that personality is quite malleable and should be now considered more like “soft plaster.”

The implications, of course, are far ranging.   Consider two: 

1. Public policy.  British Prime Minister David Cameron has suggested that a measure of a nation’s ‘happiness’ may be a better indicator of national performance that GDP (Gross Domestic Product) alone.  And he is moving forward on an unprecedented project (that he first proposed in 2010) to explore how happy his nation is. His national survey will touch on unemployment, family, education and crime, but will also, according to a news report in The Sun, pose these four subjective questions:  1. how happy did you feel yesterday ?  2. how anxious did you feel yesterday?  3. how satisfied are you with your life nowadays; and  4. to what extent do you feel the things you do in your life are worthwhile?

Traditionally, the study authors explain, public policy has focused on economic factors, “such as increasing income or reducing unemployment, which are believed to be important ways in which an individual might obtain higher well-being.  However, our data suggests that a better way to understand how we might improve our well-being could be to focus on who we are and how we relate to the world around us.”  For example, changes in personality may lead to greater community involvement and an increase in the “willingness of individuals to work together to form mutually beneficial solutions,” according to the study authors.

2. Personality intervention.  The key, of course, is figuring out which personality characteristics to build, and which to shed.  And the key will be to learn more where we stand on the Big Five personality characteristics, which are: agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness, extroversion (sociability, assertiveness)and neuroticism (e.g., the tendency to respond with negative emotions to threatening situations, frustration and loss). 
And if we begin to re-shape our personalities, how might we (and society) benefit?   
     -- Agreeableness . . . helps predicts better quality relationships;
     -- Conscientiousness  . . . is linked to achievement;
     -- Openness . . . is linked to intelligence and artistic talents; and
     -- Positive affect (more extroversion, less neuroticism) . . . helps individuals deal with stress.

 

Positive affect.  Hmmm.  I’ve always wanted to be better at dealing with stress. 

The study was conducted by Christopher Boyce and Alex Wood from the University of Manchester, UK, and Nattavudh Powdthavee from the London School of Economic and the University of Melbourne. They used a large data set of 7,500 individuals from Australia who answered questions on life satisfaction and personality, at two points in time.

 

 

Would you ever consider wearing a thinking cap?

You remember the expression: “Put your thinking cap on.” Well, soon, you’ll be able to do just that.  I’m not kidding. The technology exists (and is being used today by rthe government) to connect electrodes to our brain to make us smarter.  Would you consider it? 

Writing for the New Scientist, technology feature editor Sally Adee recently did just that – she elected the electrodes and her report is both favorable and fascinating (read her scintillating account at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328501.600-zap-your-brain-into-the-zone-fast-track-to-pure-focus.html). And if, after reading Adee’s report, you’re still a touch reluctant to zap your brain, well then, consider doning a doctor’s lab coat instead.  Because wearing one will also make you smarter. 

Let’s start with the lab coat, then back to the thinking cap. 

In a study published earlier this year out of Northwestern University, researchers Hajo Adam and Adam Galinsky found that study participants performed better when they wore a doctor’s lab coat. Adam and Galinsky call it “enclothed cognition” and posit that a person’s psychological processes are affected by the clothing that we wear.  They found that clothing does indeed make the wo/man . . . or at least influences her/him.  And it’s not just the physical clothing, it’s the symbolic meaning as well. 

Adam and Galinsky began with a pre-test which confirmed that a lab coat is generally associated with attentiveness and carefulness.  “We therefore predicted that wearing a lab coat would increase performance on attention-related tasks,” they explained. Three experiments were conducted, yielding two key findings: 
1. Physically wearing a lab coat increased selective attention, compared to not wearing a lab coat; and
2. Performance increased if you knew that the lab coat was that of a doctor’s, as opposed to a painter’s. 

No big surprises here, that enclothed cognition, as the authors call it, “. . . depends on both the symbolic meaning and the physical experience of wearing the clothes.” 
Now back to the thinking cap (and by the way, if you’re interested, you can purchase thinking caps online, in almost any color . . . I’m thinking of buying a blue one, to match my eyes, but for some reason I think orange might be the smarter choice). 

First, the reality.  The technology exists, and writer Cory Doctorow (who has tried it) said last month that while “we don’t yet have a commercial available thinking cap . . . we will soon.”  As both Doctorow and Adee report, the technology currently is being used in the defense community, and Doctorow describes it as “targeted electrical stimulation of the brain during training exercises to induce ‘flow states’ and enhance learning.”  

Second, the ethics.  Doctorow cited two groups which recently raised deep concerns about the ethics of brain boosting (a group of Oxford University neuroscientists and a report from the UK’s Royal Society).  Their concerns, said Doctorow, lead many to wonder: “Is brain boosting a fair addition to the cognitive enhancement arms race? Will it create a Morlock/Eloi-like social divide where the rich can afford to be smarter and leave everyone else behind? Will Tiger Moms force their lazy kids to strap on a zappity helmet during piano practice?” 

So . . . what was it like, strapping on those electrodes?

For his part, Doctorow* raved about the experience, saying : “I only remember feeling like I had just had an excellent cup of coffee, but without the caffeine jitters. I felt clear-headed and like myself, just sharper. Calmer. Without fear and without doubt. From there on, I just spent the time waiting for a problem to appear so that I could solve it.”

For her part, Adee finds the subject, and the experience, highly memorable. 
Adee, on the future: “The plan is to provide a short cut to virtuosity, slashing the amount of time it takes to master a new skill - be it tennis, playing the piano or marksmanship.”  (Adee points out that, according to Anders Ericsson at Florida State University in Tallahassee, it normally takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert in any discipline.)

Adee, on the hook-up: “I'm now allowing Michael Weisend, who works at the Mind Research Network in Albuquerque, New Mexico, to hook my brain up to what's essentially a 9-volt battery. He sticks the anode - the positive pole of the battery - to my temple, and the cathode to my left arm. ‘You're going to feel a slight tingle,' he says, and warns me that if I remove an electrode and break the connection, the voltage passing through my brain will blind me for a good few seconds.’ ”

And how does it feel? Weisend told Adee: “The number one thing I hear people say after tDCS, is that time passed unduly fast.” Adee adds that their movements also seem to become more automatic; they report calm, focused concentration - and their performance improves immediately.

*Cory Doctorow is a Canadian-British blogger, journalist, and science fiction author who is co-editor of the weblog Boing Boing.  

Gossip – is it good for you?

(Author’s note: this topic has been near the top of my list for months, but it wasn’t until Roe called me out that I knew it was time to write it.  We were driving back from Durham, NC when I explained that my next topic had to do with gossip.  I told Roe that, from my vantage point, most people think of gossip in a negative light, to which Roe quickly (and accurately) responded: “Well, YOU certainly do.”  Point taken).

Few would argue (who's with me on this?) that gossip has a negative side.  Gossip is often seen as hurtful, immoral, unproductive and, at times, downright mean.  But there is another side.  In two unrelated studies researchers proved what will now seem obvious – that gossip increases fairness, holds selfishness in check and helps us figure out who to befriend and who to avoid (a key survival tool).

Fairness/Selfishness

Researchers Bianca Beersma and Gerben Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam conducted a series of studies to see if the threat of gossip would suppress selfish behavior, and, sure enough, the results were striking.  Participants were asked to distribute 100 tickets for a cash-prize lottery, and they were free to decide how to distribute the tickets (that is, they could keep more for themselves or distribute more to the group). In the first round of experiments, participants were told that their choices would be kept totally private.  But in the next round of experiments, they were told that the group was either prone to, or unlikely to, gossip about each other's choices. No surprise here.  In every instance, people became substantially less selfish when they knew they might be talked about.  The authors explained: “When the threat of gossip exists, group members can expect that they will be talked about if they decide to take a free ride.” The authors conclude: “. . . gossip is a powerful tool to control self-serving behavior in groups.  Indeed the grapevine keeps group members in line. Although mostly viewed negatively, gossip may be essential for groups’ survival.”

Gossip as a evolutionary survival tool

Paying attention to gossip may indeed be linked to longevity/survival, according to Northeastern University researchers who found that our visual system is trained – beyond conscious awareness – to remember individuals who are associated with negative gossip. In a fascinating series of experiments using a stereoscope (where two images compete for the brain’s attention), participants were presented with faces linked to positive, neutral or negative gossip (examples: helped an elderly woman with her groceries, passed a man on a street, threw a chair at his classmate).  As you might suspect, faces paired with negative gossip were dominant. And just to make certain that the brain wasn’t simply attending to the negative gossip, the researchers controlled for that variable.  Same result.    

From a survival perspective it’s easy to understand that our brain might be wired, beyond our awareness, to quickly identify people associated with negative gossip.  In an article authored by Christian Jarrett for BPS Research Digest, the Northeastern researchers were quoted as saying: “Our results . . .  [show] that top-down affective information acquired through gossip influences vision . . . so that what we know about someone influences not only how we feel and think about them, but also whether or not we see them in the first place.” Jarrett opined: “The finding lends scientific credence to the established PR wisdom that for entertainers vying for the spotlight, there's no such thing as bad press.”

Confidence or Ability: Which one is more important?

Confidence matters.  And more than you think.  That’s the bottom line from a new series of studies which reveals that when confidence is manipulated (more on this, in a moment), people perform significantly better. 
Much of the research examines the confidence-ability conundrum by testing people’s 3D mental rotation ability – a skill commonly thought to be better in males than females.  And, indeed, in test after test, males do seem to score considerably higher. But when confidence is factored into the mix, the sex differences appear to dissolve. 

How could this be?

Enter the stereotype threat, a psychological term defined as “the tendency for members of a negatively stereotyped group to underperform on tasks relevant to a culturally salient stereotype,” according to Dr. Scott Kaufman, who wrote about the subject recently in the Huffington Post. Kaufman cited four recent studies which confirmed what others have found, and what in some ways is transparent – that when you expect to perform well at a given task, you do remarkably better.  In addition, Kaufman maintains, confidence may be related to working memory; in other words, when your confidence is low it restricts your working memory which in turn lowers your ability to perform well. 

Now back to confidence manipulation.  Angelica Moè and Francesca Pazzaglia of the University of Padau performed a series of experiments to explore if expectation altered performance. First they had both men and women complete a test of mental rotation.  After the first round, some participants were informed that men do better on the task, and others were told that women do better on the task.  Enter, round two. The same participants took another test of mental rotation, and guess what?  Explained Kaufman: “Women performed significantly worse after being told men do better on the task, whereas women who were told that women do better on the task performed significantly better at the very same task. Similarly, men performed better after being told that men are better at the task and performed worse after being told that women are better at the task. What we believe is true matters.”

What’s at work here?  Confidence.  University of Warwick psychology researcher Dr Zachary Estes, working with Dr Sydney Felker from the University of Georgia Health Center, found that confident people, regardless of gender, were more accurate.  Concludes Kaufman: “So confidence matters for everyone.”  And to fully test that confidence really was the difference (and not each individual’s ability to perform a mental rotation task), the researchers injected a sophisticated layer of confidence manipulation . . . and achieved the same results.  

Why does this all matter?  Because, in the classroom, student expectations drive performance. In a 2006 study by Matthew McGlone and Joshua Aronson (University of Texas at Austin), the authors explained: “Stereotype threat research provides insight into how the low standardized test scores of students from stigmatized social groups may derive in part from the negative performance expectations about these groups.” 

What can we do?  We can remind students about their membership in group linked to positive performance.  McGlone and Aronson tested this hypothesis by priming female college students.  And sure enough, women primed to contemplate their identify as students at a selective private college outperformed those who were primed to contemplate their sex or a test-irrelevant identity. 

So, think you’re elite, and you just might be.

Who’s more ethical, the rich or the poor?

Who’s more likely to lie when negotiating, cut people off while driving, or endorse unethical behavior in the workplace?

Researchers at the University of California Berkeley conducted seven related experiments and determined that, in each instance, upper-class participants were more likely to exhibit unethical behavior than their middle- or lower-class counterparts. 

Study author and doctoral student Paul Piff, quoted in a UC Berkeley press release, hypothesized that “the increased unethical tendencies of upper-class individuals are driven, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed.”  Added Piff, in a news interview: “When tempted, the less affluent paid attention to fairness while the wealthy were more likely to cheat.” 

More than 1,000 individuals of lower-, middle- and upper-class backgrounds participated in the study, which revealed the following:

·         Negotiating in the workplace – Picture this: you’re a manager, interviewing candidates who want a two-year contract position, but you know that the job will last for only six months. Plus, you’ll receive a bonus for negotiating a lower salary.  What did the study find?  People of upper-class participants were more likely to deceive job candidates by withholding information.

·         Aggressive driving behavior – the study found that upper-class motorists were four times more likely than other drivers to cut off other vehicles at a busy four-way intersection and three times more likely to cut off a pedestrian waiting to enter a crosswalk.   

·         Helping yourself – in a unique study, participants in a lab-setting were assigned a series of tasks. Nearby was a jar of candy, reserved for visiting children, and participants were invited to take a candy or two.  Who took twice as much candy as their counterparts?  You guessed it.

·        Attitudes about greed – In this experiment, participants were primed to think about the advantages of greed and then presented with bad behavior-in-the-workplace scenarios, such as stealing cash, accepting bribes and overcharging customers.  The study revealed that participants NOT in the upper class – if sufficiently primed – were just as likely to engage in unethical behavior.

Where's the good news? Priming, apparently, works in reverse, that is, people can easily be primed to behave more generously.  In an article by Maia Szalavitz, a health writer at time.com, Szalavitz noted: "In an earlier study, Piff and his colleagues found that rich people were less likely to help a person who entered the lab in distress — except when they’d just watched a video about child poverty.”  This led Szalavitz to wonder: “. . . if we are concerned about negative media content harming the moral development of children, we might want to place positive depictions of greed near or even above sex and violence on the list of exposures that are unsuitable for youth.”