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.

##

 

Should you start talking to yourself?

It’s Tuesday evening, near 6 o’clock, and you’re dashing about, looking forlorn on aisle 5.  You’re staring at the supermarket shelves, but can’t seem to find where the peanut butter lives. What might you do?  Start talking to yourself, out loud (“peanut butter, peanut butter”).

Apparently, what works for the young ones (have you ever heard a toddler talk to themselves, while tying their shoes?), apparently works for adults as well.  Researchers have found that talking to oneself, out loud, facilitates both cognition and visual processing.

Why does this method work?  Perhaps it’s because our auditory system is activated when we hear the words “peanut butter.”  Or perhaps it’s because our cognitive system is activated when we produce the thought . . . that creates the words “peanut butter.”  No matter, say the researchers, the bottom line is clear: when we’re in search mode, saying the words of the missing object (our keys, our hair brush, the blue sweater that I just took off), or even silently mouthing the words, apparently triggers our system in a positive way.

In their study, psychologists Gary Lupyan (University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Daniel Swingley (University of Pennsylvania), explain: "People often talk to themselves, yet very little is known about the functions of this self-directed speech . . . It is been commonly observed that children spend a considerable time talking to themselves. . . . One way to understand this seemingly odd behavior is by considering that language is more than simply a tool for communication, but rather than it alters ongoing cognitive (and even perceptual) processing in nontrivial ways."

In an article published on livescience.com, Lupyan was quoted as saying: “The general take-home point is that language is not just a system of communication . . . I'm arguing [that] it can augment perception, augment thinking.”

Lupyan and Swingley caution, however, that self-talk, at times, can actually slow the search process. Apparently, the key is how familiar the object is – in other words, if the object you’re searching for is familiar, self-talk will help; if the object is less well known, self-talk may impede the search.

Most beneficial forms of self-talk

Rin Mitchell, writing for the web site bigthink.com, expands on the notion that self-talk can improve brain function.  Drawing on research, Mitchell explains that the most beneficial forms of self-talk “are with instructional and thought and action. Instructional self-talk is when you tell yourself each step you need to take in order to complete something while in the process, such as driving a car. Thought and action is the act of setting a goal for yourself and a strategy as to how to accomplish the goal before taking action.”

What does Mitchell recommend? “Start talking to yourself to increase the performance and function of your brain. . . .The key is to practice doing it until it becomes natural. You can use specific ‘cue words’ in your self-talk to help you in whatever goal or task you would like to complete. Eventually, you will learn how to self-talk in a way that benefits you the most in every situation.” 

##

What works better – positive or negative thinking?

There’s a new strategy in town for achieving your goals – it’s called “mental contrasting” and it demonstrates that, if we wish to reach our goals, we have to do more than simply visualize them.  The term “mental contrasting” was coined by Gabriele Oettingen and colleagues (at New York University’s psychology lab) and their studies support the notion that simply visualizing a positive outcome doesn’t particularly work.  

In reviewing Oettingen’s studies, psychologist Christian Jarrett, in an article posted on www.99u.com, explained: “. . . visualizing our aims as already achieved can backfire. The positive imagery can be inspiring at first, but it also tricks the mind into relaxing, as if the hard work is done. This means the more compelling the mental scene of success, the more likely it is that your energy will seep away.”

Oettingen and Andreas Kappes, in a paper titled “Mental Contrasting of Future and Reality,” explained: “In mental contrasting, people first imagine the attainment of a desired future (e.g., becoming a lawyer, writing an article) and thereafter reflect on the present reality that stands in the way of attaining the desired future (e.g., excessive partying, having little time). Thus, contrasting fantasies about the future with reflections on reality is a problem-solving strategy . . . .”

So what works better?  Indulging in thoughts about reaching your goal, or mental contrasting? Oettinger and colleagues report on their findings:

“Participants in one condition were taught to use mental contrasting regarding their everyday concerns, while participants in the other condition were taught to indulge. Two weeks later, participants in the mental-contrasting condition reported to have fared better in managing their time and decision making during everyday life than those in the indulging condition. By helping people to set expectancy-dependent goals, teaching the metacognitive strategy of mental contrasting can be a cost- and time-effective tool to help people manage the demands of their everyday life.”

In one fascinating study, Oettingen and colleagues evaluated the impact of positive vs. negative feedback on goal achievement.  Here’s how they set it up, as described by Jarrett:

“Dozens of volunteers took part in what they thought was an investigation into creativity. Half the study participants were given false feedback on a test of their creative potential, with their results inflated to suggest that they'd excelled. In advance of the main challenge – a series of creative insight problems – some of the participants were then taught mental contrasting: writing about how good it would feel to smash the problems, and then writing about the likely obstacles to achieving that feat, such as daydreaming.

"The best performers on the insight problems were those participants who'd received the positive feedback about their potential and who'd performed mental contrasting. They out-classed their peers who'd received inflated feedback but only indulged in positive thoughts, and they outperformed those participants who'd received negative feedback (regardless of whether they, too, performed mental contrasting).”

Bottom line: the best time to employ mental contrasting (that is, focusing on obstacles to overcome) is when you’re in positive mood, when excitement is high and adrenaline is flowing, not when you’re down in the dumps.  So wait until the energy flows, and then consider the steps you need to take to get there, wherever there might be.

##

What 167-year-old college may be going out of business in four years?

You’ve probably never visited their campus, and you have never met an alumni.  This college offers no formal lecture halls and continues to operate tuition-free (that said, you may, in a way, be a major donor).  The college specializes in political science, and “graduates” precisely 540 individuals every four years. 

We’re talking, of course, about the Electoral College*.  Some political historians predict that the College may be closing shop come 2016, based on forecasts that Romney could lose the election despite winning the popular vote.  It’s happened before in American history – that is, the candidate who won the popular vote came up short in the Electoral College, but this would be the first time that it would deny the Republicans the White House. 

The current movement to eliminate the Electoral College is called NPVIC (the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) and over the last four years, a majority of state legislatures have actively debated joining the Compact. Here’s how it works: individual states approve a law which says that all of their electoral votes will be awarded to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.  So, for example, if South Carolina were to pass such a law (they have not yet), and Romney wins the popular vote, all 9 of South Carolina’s electors would be awarded to Romney. 

To date, eight states, plus the District of Columbia, have passed such a law – and here’s the creative part: in each case, the law doesn’t go into effect until the states in the Compact make up the majority of the electoral votes (that is, 270 electoral vote from a total of 538).  Currently, the eight states, plus DC, total 132 electoral votes (the eight states are: California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington).

In 1969, the U.S. government came close to abolishing the Electoral College when Congress voted to amend the Constitution.  At the time, 38 state legislatures were required to approve the federal legislation, but only 31 ratified, and the movement has laid dormant since then, until now. 

Proposing to abolish or amend the Electoral College is nothing new. The federal web site www.archives.gov explains that over the past 200 years, “over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject.” But the NPVIC may be the one that sticks because of three factors:

 

1.       The NPVIC route does not require amending the Constitution;

2.       If Romney wins the popular vote, and loses the White House, this would be the first time that a Republican would have been denied the White House; and

3.       Over the last four years, at least one house in 31 state legislatures has approved a bill to comply with the NPVIC (though in 22 states, the agreement has not become law).

A 2011 Gallup poll found that 62% of Americans favor replacing the Electoral College with a straight out popular vote, but there are strong arguments for retaining the current system – most notably that it protects small states and minority interests.  Explained Michael Racette this August, on the web site www.2paragraphs.com:

 

“The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to less populous states, which the framers thought they needed. Because a small state’s few electoral votes might make the difference in a close election, the current system encourages candidates to take into consideration the needs and concerns of those states in developing an election platform (and in governing, if elected). This tends to result in (as the framers hoped) the nomination of candidates with broad national appeal. The abilities of ethnic minorities to influence the national election outcome are also enhanced in the current system, because those population groups tend to live in or near large cities in large states, thus encouraging candidates to consider their interests in hopes of capturing large blocks of Electoral College votes.

“For instance, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, persons identifying themselves as ‘Hispanic or Latino’ comprised 16% of the national population, but far greater portions of the populations of large electoral states such as Texas (38%), California (38%), Colorado (21%), and Florida (23%), as well as some other smaller ‘swing’ states, whose votes might be enough to tip the balance in favor of a candidate in a close election. The voting power of minority groups would arguably decrease with a direct national popular vote because candidates might be less inclined to champion their interests or concerns in favor of majority interests.”

 * The term “Electoral College” was first written into law in 1845, though the term itself does not appear in the Constitution.