Stage Fright

by Ashley Powell

Imagine walking out onto a stage in front of 10,000 people waiting to hear you perform. While the sight of a large audience thrills and motivates many performing artists, this is not the case for all stars. The truth is that even some famous musicians who have amassed great fan support continue to suffer from performance anxiety, more commonly known as stage fright. This form of anxiety results in an increased state of physiological arousal, which actually impedes performance. The talented singer-songwriter Carly Simon struggled with performance anxiety for many years of her career, so much so that she would poke her hands with safety pins to distract herself. Before one performance, Simon had her  band’s entire horn section spank her as she awaited the rise of the curtain.

Of course, all artists get nervous sometimes.  Italian tenor Enrico Caruso said that artists who claim to never get nervous are not artists, or else they are liars or fools.   We have probably all suffered from this type of anxiety at some point in our lives while performing in front of people—whether it be singing, giving a presentation, or playing in an athletic competition. However, this “nervous energy” (which often translates into a positive means of motivation) differs from performance anxiety.

So what exactly is performance anxiety? And does is fade away with increased level of talent? Performance anxiety is a psychological disorder in which an individual’s performance skills are impaired through his or her resistance and apprehension in the face of a public crowd. It has nothing to do with one’s musical capacity or preparation time. According to the Yerkes-Dodson curve (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), moderate levels of arousal improve performance, but high levels of arousal impair performance.   In the face of this increased state of arousal, well beyond the ideal point of the Yerkes-Dodson curve, the sympathetic nervous system is triggered, mobilizing the body’s “fight-or-flight” response to a threat (in this case, a crowd). Behavioral manifestations include trembling, muscle tension, and changes in posture. When epinephrine is released, heart rate increases and blood vessels constrict. As a result, blood pressure increases, causing overheating and sweating. In the case of singers, vocal chords tighten, which makes one’s voice sound shaky.

What causes this stage fright?  Sinden (1999) conducted a study on 138 student musicians at the university level using Frost’s Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (Frost et al., 1990). Sinden found a strong correlation between perfectionism and performance anxiety. Many studies have been done since then, contributing to the growing evidence that many socially anxious people may be perfectionists (Alden, Ryder, & Mellings, 2002). Setting such high performance standards and concerning oneself with mistakes only contributes to further self-criticism and performance anxiety.

So, if you ever wonder if the stars still get stage fright, the answer is that some do.  Whether or not Carly Simon identifies as a perfectionist, she certainly exemplifies a star who does not like to shine in the limelight (rather, under the stage lights). While most stars live for the crowds, there are those who dread them despite being talented. But if you do suffer from performance anxiety, you can always try poking your hands with safety pins.

References

Enright, P. (2007, September 12).  Even stars get stage fright.  In msnbc.com. Retrieved April 10, 2012. from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20727420/ns/health-mental_health/t/even-stars-get-stage-fright/.

Kenny, D. T. (2011). The psychology of music performance anxiety. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wikipedia (n.d.). Carly Simon.   In Wikipedia. Retrieved 10 April, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Simon

Wikipedia (n.d.). Enrico Caruso.   In Wikipedia. Retrieved 10 April, 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Caruso

Yerkes, R.M., & Dodson, J.D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18, 459-82.

Yoshie, M., Kudo, K., Murakoshi, T., & Ohtsuki, T. (2009). Music performance anxiety in skilled pianists: Effects of social-evaluative performance situation on subjective, autonomic, and electromyographic reactions. Experimental Brain Research, 199(2), 117-26. doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1979-y
 

Does video gaming make you hostile?

by Curtis Smith

Art of Video Games Exhibit 15096 by tedeytan

Videogames are an immensely popular form of entertainment in the United States. In fact, in a national survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project (2008) of a representative proportion of youth ages 12 to 17, approximately 99% of boys and 94% of girls say that they’ve played some form of videogames. You would certainly be hard-pressed to find a person within this age range that has not played a videogame. Typically, studies have been centralized in the detrimental effects of videogames, of which can be called anti-social behavior. However, recent studies have demonstrated that conversely, exposure to pro-social content can increase pro-social behavior.

The primary argument of the opponents of videogames is against the violent ones. Considerable evidence has indeed been mounted in favor of these claims. In sum, violent videogames promote hostility, anxiety, and violence (Bushman & Anderson, 2002).  In an experiment to test this theory, a pool of randomly assigned undergraduate students played one out of four nonviolent or violent games (Bushman & Anderson, 2002). The subjects would proceed to play three morally unclear story stems. After each story stem participants were asked to state their expectations about the main character’s aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. The results clearly demonstrated skewedness towards aggressive responses, for those who had played aggressive games. After playing a violent game, players attributed over 50% more hostile actions and thoughts to the story character.  The authors raised the possibility  that repeated exposure to these short-term effects can contribute to an aggressive long-term personality.

Despite these findings, it is notable to consider that the game industry has expanded. Violence in gaming is still prevalent and perhaps preferable to many gamers. But the types of games that people are playing now are complex, thought provoking, and intelligent. The dangers of a young person consistently playing a game such as Gears of War 3 in which explicit language and violence is pervasive throughout can be readily understood. But why deny someone access to a game such as Portal 2, which is mentally stimulating, challenging, and filled with witty humor? Rather, perhaps parents should manipulate what types of games they let their children play.

Recent studies have emerged illustrating potential positive effects of videogames. In one study by Greitemeyer and Osswald, participants were asked to partake in two experiments (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2011). First they played either Lemmings as a pro-social videogame or they played a neutral game, Tetris, for ten minutes. The first game was employed as a game in which the participants would save the beings by leading them to the exit. The second game served as a basis for comparison. After they completed the videogames, the subjects, as a “manipulation check,” filled out a questionnaire indicating how pro-social the game was and measures of their liking of the game (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2011) Afterwards, the participants performed what is known as a lexical decision task. A string of words (Pro-social words, neutral words, and non-words) would appear on screen and the subjects were asked to identify whether it was a word or not as quickly as possible.  Subjects recognized the pro-social words faster after playing the pro-social game, compared to after they played the neutral game.

So what do these results mean? It represents evidence that playing a pro-social videogame primes pro-social thoughts in the cognitive network. Played consistently over time, the thoughts could manifest themselves in a person’s actions, thoughts, etc., just as an anti-social game would induce the opposite. Perhaps videogames are potentially more beneficial than any gamer could have thought.

References

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1679-1686.

Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2011). Playing prosocial video games increases the accessibility of prosocial thoughts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151(2), 121-128.

Pew Internet & American Life Project (2008, September 16).  Teens, Video Games and Civics.  Retrieved May 4, 2012 from Pew Research Center Publications, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/953/

Superstition may be good for you

Rome Braves by The Suss-Man (Mike)

by  105 student

To the detached observer, athletes may seem like a strange group of people, performing irrational routines in preparation for an event. Perhaps you have heard that Michael Jordan wore blue University of North Carolina shorts under his Bull’s uniform for good luck or that National Hockey League goaltender, Patrick Roy, was said to have talked to the goalposts throughout games, or noticed that Tiger Woods always wears red on Sundays. If you have ever played a sport, you or your team may have had certain rituals such as wearing purple socks on game days or eating waffles at the previous meal.

Superstition is generally first developed in hindsight, for example: an athlete reviews a performance and then establishes cause and effect between certain circumstances such as wearing green socks and playing well. In 1948, B.F. Skinner studied superstitious behavior in pigeons. After a pigeon was reduced to 75 percent of its weight (when well fed), a food hopper was presented at regular intervals into the pigeon’s cage. In the majority of cases, the birds started to perform distinct behaviors such as turning counter clockwise or swinging the head and body in a pendulum motion close to the time the food was presented. Even though there was no actual causal relationship, the birds continued to perform certain behaviors presumably because of an initial coincidence. By definition, superstitious actions do not have any inherent value yet many athletes still refuse to change their behavior. Are they wrong or simply stubborn by acting this way? Many studies indicate the opposite, superstitious behavior does serve a purpose.

Chance plays a part in the outcome of virtually all sports, creating a relatively uncertain environment. Optimal athletic performance demands a heightened mental state known as the flow state or being in the zone,essentially a good match between the demands of the sport and the abilities of the athlete (Marr, 2001). A survey of male and female athletes at the University of Western Ontario indicated that athletes use superstitions to regulate their emotions in stressful situations such as sporting events. Though superstitious behavior may have no rational foundation, athletes believe they have a greater sense of control over the outcome of the situation, helping them to reach an optimal mental state (Burke, 2006).

Regardless of an athlete’s specific rituals, superstitions may serve an important role in athletic performance. Remember this the next time you hear about an athlete’s strange pregame routine.

References

Burke, Kevin L. (2006). An Exploratory Investigation of Superstition, Personal Control, Optimism and Pessimism in NCAA Division I Intercollegiate Student-Athletes.  Athletic Insight, 8(2). Retrieved April 21, 2010 from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol8Iss2/Superstition.htm

Gregory, Jane C. and Brain M. Petrie. (1972).  Superstition in Sport.  University of  Waterloo.  Presented at the Fourth Canadian Psychomotor Learning and Sports Psychology Symposium. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov:80/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/34/0f/45.pdf

Marr, Arthur J. (2001). In the Zone: A Biobehavioral Theory of the Flow Experience.  Athletic Insight, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol3Iss1/Commentary.htm

Skinner, B.F. (1947). Superstition in the Pigeon. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, pgs. 168-172. Retrieved March 5, 2010 from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/

Skinner/Pigeon/

The benefits of crying

by Rachel Anspach

Been Crying (2) by Toni Blay

Crying is often the result of feelings of sadness and frustration, but after crying many people experience a feeling of release and catharsis (Byslma, 2008).  Humans are the only species that shed tears emotionally.  Crying is something that all people of all ages and cultures do (Hendriks, 2008).  Since crying is a trait that has evolved solely in humans, there must be some sort of evolutionary advantage to emotional crying.  Many studies have been done which examine the effect that crying has on the body, and most of them have actually found that crying actually has a negative impact physiologically (Hendriks, 2008).  However, many people including psychologists have always believed that crying is good for you (Hendriks, 2008).  Perhaps crying  developed evolutionarily for a non-physiological reason.  “Attachment Theory” suggests that crying is a behavior that is natural to humans from birth.  As an infant, babies learn that crying will result in comforting, which creates a relationship bond.  This behavior is continued to create attachments in life (Hendriks, 2008).

Dr. Oren Hasson, a professor at Tel Aviv University, recently conducted a study in which he studied different types of crying and the benefits of crying.  He speculated that the evolutionary advantage of crying comes from crying with your peers.  When you cry, you show vulnerability because your vision is blurred.  This allows someone who cares about you to take care of you while you are in a weakened state. According to Hasson, this is beneficial to both the caretaker and receiver because it creates a stronger relationship bond.  This means that a positive comes out of the negative situation which caused the crying in the first place.

The wonders of dreaming

By Nick Johnson

Sleeping EEG Monitor by cobalt123

Why do we dream? Is it necessary to dream? Dreaming occurs during REM (rapid eye movement) sleep, during which the brain does not recognize any sensory input. One experiment concerning dreams studied REM sleep and how subjects reacted when they were awoken during REM sleep. (Dement, 1960). To establish a baseline percentage of REM sleep per total sleep time, the subjects were observed for a few nights. When they were woken up during non-REM sleep they showed no increase in dream time on the nights after the night when they were woken up continually. However, when the subjects were woken up frequently during REM sleep, they entered REM sleep more often on the recovery nights than on the baseline nights, indicating that the brain needed to make up for lost REM sleep time. Furthermore, subjects that had been woken up repeatedly during REM sleep showed changes in behavior that included anxiety and difficulty concentrating.

A similar experiment involved waking rats up during REM sleep. The observers placed a rat in a bucket full of water on an upside-down flower pot. When the rat wanted to sleep, it had to climb onto the flower pot, but when it entered REM sleep, muscular paralysis made the rat fall into the water and wake up. After several of these dreamless nights the rats were put into survival situations to test their reactions. Though rats have innate responses to threatening situations, the dream-deprived rats could not complete the tasks. According to the article, the rats, when placed in an open area, would not dash for cover, as an alert rat would, but instead would roam aimlessly. Furthermore, after each rat failed the basic survival tests, they were given amphetamines to determine if it was merely sleep-deprivation that was causing their behavior or if it was dream-deprivation that was the culprit. If sleep-deprivation was the cause then the amphetamines would have counteracted the rats’ tiredness but the experimenters found that the rats did not perform better on the survival tests, indicating that dream-deprivation caused their failure on the tests. Just as with the human subjects, the rats could not concentrate on the proper tasks and could not react correctly when they were deprived of REM sleep and therefore deprived of dreaming.  Consistent with the results of this study, some  scientists theorize that dreams served as a sort of theater to prepare one for situations one might encounter when awake.

Another hypothesis (Siegel, 2003) is that REM sleep may be necessary to prevent an overabundance of certain neurotransmitters. The release of monoamines, including the mood-related neurotransmitters norepinephrine and serotonin, stops during REM sleep.  An overabundance might lead to desensitization and a lack of ability to regulate mood. Furthermore, during REM sleep there is a lot of brain activity that may help in allowing the brain to develop properly.  The platypus, which is blind at birth and receives little sensory input, has a lot of REM sleep, whereas the dolphin which is active from birth has very little. The platypus’ greater amount of REM sleep could possibly allow its brain to develop more since it did not have the chance to develop much at birth. The evidence from the results from both the experiments and observations shows the brain needs a certain amount of REM sleep per night to allow the brain to develop and to allow the organism to act properly in its waking hours.

References:
Dement, W. (1960, June 10). The Effect of Dream Deprivation. Science, 131, 1705-1707. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1705755?origin=JSTOR-pdf

Dixit, J. (2007, Nov. – Dec.). Dreams: Night School. Psychology Today. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/index.php?term=pto-20071029-000003&print=1

Siegel, J. (2003, November). Why We Sleep. Scientific American, 289. Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://moodlepilot.vassar.edu/file.php/51/articles/html_files/Siegel%202003.html

Why do we dream? – The REM state. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2009, from http://www.why-we-dream.com/remstate.htm

A certain sense of morality

By Victoria Velasco

train wreck by woodleywonderworks

The train problem consists of two scenarios. In the first, one must pull a lever to direct a moving train away from five people and toward one person, and in the second, one must push a person under a train, thereby stopping it in time to save five people. In a wide survey, many people regarded the option in the first scenario to be ethical, however, an overwhelming number of subjects strongly dissented the morality of the second scenario, yet they were unable to articulate the ethical difference from the first scenario (Hauser, Cushman & Young, 1997). In both situations one is asked to harm one for the good of the community. The sources of this inconsistency are, according to a recent article by Steven Pinker, universal morals.

In a recent study, fMRI’s monitored brain activity when subjects were presented with the “train problem” (Greene, 2001). In all subjects considering the first scenario, only the area of the frontal lobes linked to logic, showed any signs of excessive activity. However, when presented with the second scenario, the medial area of the frontal lobes, linked to interpersonal emotions, as well as that linked to logic and the anterior cingulate cortex, which registers conflicts between different urges. These findings, as well as those of the previous study illustrate moral battle between emotions and logic, and the universal victory of emotions.

Another experiment on universal morality focused on Rhesus monkeys illustrates the sense of community and avoidance of harm of community members (Masserman, 1964). Operator monkeys were trained to pull a chain to receive food, and another chain when signaled with a red and blue light, respectively, however on the fourth day of the experiment, the monkeys were paired, and when the operator monkey pulled the chains, the other would receive a shock. Two-thirds of the monkeys showed discretion in pulling the chains, especially after receiving the shocks, and if they had previous interaction with their pair, and many of the monkeys even avoided pulling the chains to feed themselves.

Love, obsession, and chemistry

by Dan Schwarzman

May 22nd (Don't Say That You Love Me) by Phoney Nickle

What is love, and why does it exist? Chemical similarities have been found linking love to OCD and depression. Anthropologist Helen Fisher PhD of Rutgers University has been doing research on love, which she has divided into three chemically separate states. Fisher says that lust is driven by androgens and estrogen, while romantic love, characterized by intensely emotional mood swings and obsessive craving, is driven by high dopamine and norepinephrine levels, along with low serotonin. The third state, of stable attachment, is driven by the hormones oxytocin and vasopressin.

An evolutionary anthropologist, Fisher explains the evolutionary value of these three states. According to evolutionary theory, adaptations show up in species if they lead to increased survival and reproduction. Fisher says that lust evolved as a mechanism for people to be interested on a basic level in reproduction with others, while romantic love developed to focus one’s mating energy on just one individual. Stable attachment works to tolerate this individual long enough to raise children as a team. The obsessive energy output of being in love might seem illogical in the context of evolutionary theory, especially since love is often not reciprocated, but this ability to forgo short term efficiency in favor of greater long term reproductive success makes sense as an important adaptation for the continuation of the human race.

Frequently facing forboding fears

by Brittany Parks

Photo by Jim Grady

Do you have a worst fear? Are you afraid of falling from high places, for example? What if someone told you that you could learn to overcome your worst fear? Well, science supports the idea that you can. One way to combat your biggest fear is to face it.

A UCLA study shows that the more frequently one faces a fearful situation, the sooner they can learn to overcome it. The researchers exposed mice to a white noise that was followed by a shock; therefore, the white noise became the “conditioned stimulus” that the mice learned to fear on its own because they learned to anticipate the pain of the shock. By exposing the rats to the white noise, without the shock, for long periods of time and little time between each exposure, the rats learned to overcome the fear of the white noise all together. Thus, proving that the more you face your fear the sooner you will learn to overcome it.

Learning to overcome your fear can also produce other benefits. By learning to overcome fear in one situation, you will have less anxiety when put any other dangerous situations. Researchers Kendal and Pollak also studied mice to support the theory of “learned safety,” the conditioned inhibition of fear. In their studies, the scientists conditioned two groups of rats. The first was the “fear conditioned” group which received a shock every time they heard a certain tone. The second was the “safety conditioned” group who did not receive a shock every time they heard the tone; thus, they learned not to fear the tone. When each group was placed in a pool of water with no escape, the “safety conditioned” group experienced less anxiety when facing the fearful situation. Learning to feel safety in a situation that may have seemed harmful can lead one to feel less stress when facing other experiences that may cause one to normally experience the feeling of fright.

Although each of these studies observes the fear patterns of mice, not humans, and although mice face different fear filled experiences than humans, mice react to fear filled situations in a similar manner as humans. This is because the brains of mice and humans both contain the same memory functions that can aid in “conditioning” of a fear to remember the fear or, in this case, to get rid of it.  So, are you afraid of falling from high places? I advise a trip to the nearest them park for a thrill packed experience on the tallest Ferris wheel, and I advise you to ride it as many times as you can. And after triumphing over your fear of heights, why not head over to the clowns. I’m sure this fear will not seem so bad after all after scaling a hundred feet in a little fenced basket.

References

Howard Hughes Medical Institute (2008, October 9). Learning How Not To Be Afraid. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081008150445.htm

American Psychological Association (2003, October 6). Scientist Find More Efficient Way To ‘Unlearn’ Fear. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031006064929.htm

The rationality of anger

by Jonathan Rahardjo
Oftentimes we think of anger as something that causes one to be irrational. However, according to a report published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, when angry, individuals are generally more rational than when they are calm. During the experiment, which was performed at the University of California, two separate groups of college students were persuaded to consider unpopular sides of various arguments. One group, however, was asked beforehand to write about an experience that angered them. The group that had written about these experiences was deemed to have viewed the arguments more rationally than the the group that did not write about this experience.

Why, then, does this idea of anger as a cause of irrationality? Perpetual anger has many adverse effects on the individual. For instance, according to an article in Psychology Today, those who are constantly angry are more likely to suffer from depression. Depression, in turn, has an effect on the way in which individuals process ideas. According to psychologist Albert Ellis, people are more likely to hold irrational beliefs when they are depressed. Perhaps, irrationality is generally not caused by brief episodes of anger, but manifests itself in long term bouts of anger.