Conformity can be risky business

by Charley Button

Conformity By Simon aka Flyblog

You leave the bar with your friends to head home for the night. They cross the street despite the red hand signaling “Don’t Walk.” You weigh the potential risk of oncoming traffic against ostracization from your group. In this scenario, you can either break the law by jaywalking or break with your friends momentarily. A self-preservation instinct to maintain group identity conflicts with your concern for safety and your law-abiding conscience.

When social and internal pressures compete, societal expectations habitually win out to the detriment of the individual. According to research by McGhie, Lewis, and Hyde (2011), the more you identify with a group, the more likely you are to conform to group behaviors such as “drink walking.” Their study examined the influence of psychosocial factors on individuals’ intentions to drink walk, on a scale of 1 to 7, across four scenarios. These scenarios manipulated the independent variables of high/low conformity and high/low group identity. Each incorporated a risky crossing situation, such as an intoxicated pedestrian walking against a red hand signal. Of the 151 Australian undergraduate students given this questionnaire, a large majority of individuals admitted elevated intentions to drink walk in the presence of their “closest friends” (high group identity), or when their friends were crossing in spite of the red hand signal (high conformity). When alone or with strangers (lacking group identity), subjects reported significantly lower intentions to disobey signals.

In heightened stakes, prioritizing “fitting in” over safety can lead to more serious misjudgments than ignoring pedestrian signals. Research suggests that juvenile crime is strongly influenced by peer behavior, as argued by Patacchini and Zenou (2009). Gang activity accounts for a large portion of underage lawbreaking and demonstrates the impact of neighborhood on social activities and on attitude toward the law. Patacchini and Zenou’s study revealed that petty crimes seem to be inspired by observed behavior of peers and replicated within groups, according to a desire to conform to the group’s norm. Criminal behavior of adolescents can rarely be explained on an individual basis.

In many circumstances, the need for group identity somehow overrides concern for safety, legality, or truth. Young people especially will risk their health and go against their better (individual) judgment, assimilating to a crowd’s bad decision. As Asch (1951) discovered, individuals will doubt their own judgment of the length of a line when contradicted by a group of at least three people. In order to blend in we disregard what our own eyes perceive, even when the norm is incorrect or inadvisable.

Whether it is jumping into the road or jacking a car, you are more likely to do it if your friends are. Take note though: the evolutionary importance of group identity is only beneficial if large numbers contribute to survival. When the group makes bad decisions, the individual’s wellbeing should take priority. To quote everybody’s mother, “If your friends walked off a cliff, would you follow them?”

How the brain reacts to attractiveness

By 105 Student

Composite images, used to evaluate what features raters found attractive

When you see an attractive person walking down the street you may turn your head to look at him or her. When you see everyone else, they may just be blurs as you pass by on the street. What is the reason you look at the attractive person? Why do humans find some people attractive and others not? The answer lies within the brain.

New research being done by psychologist Nancy Etcoff shows that when human beings see an attractive person the reward centers in the brain fire. Not only this, but humans can differentiate between levels of attractiveness by how heavily reward circuits fire in the brain when different pictures of attractive people are shown to them.   Could the reward centers fire so much that one could become addicted to the beauty of one person…perhaps accounting for love? Yes, many other things factor into the development of a relationship, but stimulation of reward centers in the brain surely help the process. As Psychologist John R. Buri has shown, initial attraction to a person is just a powerful wave of neurotransmitters sent our way.  This essentially creates a brain flooding of many different rewards, including Epinephrine, Dopamine, Phenyl ethylamine and Endorphins. Such powerful rewards for such surface level beauty can suggest many things, including an explanation for the commonly held belief that attractive people are more successful in life. This may possibly be because of the physiological response to seeing an attractive face, and with time and repeated exposure, an addiction, or obsession with a certain person. One would be more likely for instance to hire a person they found to be more attractive because they are rewarded chemically in the brain for being around that person.

Does this mean that universally brains can recognize certain features as attractive and that human brains will reward us for seeing beautiful people? Scientist Gad Saad, seems to suggest so in his article discussing the universal beauty metrics he has argued exist in society.  He argues that although there are some different standards of beauty among different cultures, there are universal beauty metrics in our world that exist everywhere, including a universal preference for symmetric faces and clear skin.

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.

Thinking about animal minds (and vice versa?)

By Danielle Sloan

Cheeky Hybrid Capuchin Monkey (Cebus) by Phillip Ritz

What makes human cognition unique from that of other animals? This question is far from new and has an extensive history here at Vassar, where Margaret Floy Washburn spent her career searching for possible answers. In her 1908 book, The Animal Mind, she expressed her belief that gaining knowledge on animal cognition is highly similar to doing so on our own, both being derived by the inference of observed behavior. She believed that our actions vary from the actions of animals by degree and not by kind.

Recently, Marc Hauser, professor of psychology, biological anthropology, and organismic and evolutionary biology in Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences, has theorized that there may indeed be specific differences in mental capacity between humans and non-humans (Hauser, 2005). Hauser has conducted research in various fields of cognitive science including animal behavior and communication, the evolution of language, domain-specific systems of knowledge, and morality. He says this so-called “humaniqueness” is a set of evolved mechanisms that differentiate human and animal thought. These mechanisms consist of key differences which make humans capable of creating imaginative solutions to new problems. The four unique elements of human thought are the ability to combine and recombine various types of information and knowledge to gain new understanding; to apply the same solution to one problem to a different situation; to create and understand symbolic representations of computation and sensory data; and to separate modes of thought from raw sensory and perceptual data.

According to Hauser, these key abilities have created new paths of evolution that other animals have not utilized, creating the foundation upon which cultural evolution has been constructed. He believes that animals have “laser beam” intelligence, in which there are specific solutions for specific problems. In reference to tool-use, a specific tool has a specific function. In comparison, humans have “floodlight” intelligence, which allows us to apply a certain solution to multiple problems. Other animals are capable of this kind of intelligence, but in highly limited ways when compared with humans. Hauser says the cognitive gap between humans and other “smart species” such as chimps, elephants, and dolphins is “greater than that between those animals and worms”.

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.

The evolution of a kiss

by Julia Ding

Lips, Eyes, Kiss! by Carlo Nicora

Watching a romantic comedy with my friends, my reflex to say “aww” after every deep and passionate kiss was dangerously unchecked throughout the film. When I realized what I was doing, it made me wonder why exactly humans choose kissing as a means to convey feelings of affection to one another, as opposed to any other act of physical contact (a pat on the head, or perhaps a pinch on the cheek). As it turns out, recent research indicates that underneath a person’s desire to kiss someone are a slew of other motives believed to be developed as evolutionary advantages.

Kissing is believed to have originated from mothers feeding their child by mouth, and over time expanding to signify affection past parent-child relationships (Walter, 2008).  The notion of expressing affection in such a way has been noted throughout nature, with the habit of kissing seen in such animals as chimpanzees, bonobos, and elephants.It then evolved to aid both men and women in choosing a compatible mate. When two people kiss romantically, information is passed between them about each other. With their faces so close together, people are able to gain an impression of the person they are kissing through their sensing of smell, taste, movement, and temperature. From an evolutionary standpoint, analysis of a person’s breath, scent, and the appearance of their teeth can give indications about their general health.  A previous post on the importance of kissing explored the work of Gallup, Hughes, and Harrison (2007)  Studying over 1,000 college students, they found that women are most concerned with kissing as an assessment of possible mates, while men are less selective about kissing, and often kiss with the notion that it is a precursor to sex.  One of the authors noted that women were more likely to screen potential sexual partners on the basis of their kisses (Stein, 2008). All this agrees with the belief that women have more invested in a sexual relationship, with the prospect of producing and caring for children.

All these factors encourage romantic kissing, but there may also be further chemical benefits in sharing an enjoyable kiss. In a new study, psychologist Wendy L. Hill monitored the levels of oxytocin, a hormone that influences bonding, trust, and male and female orgasm, and cortisol, a stress hormone, before and after kissing and other intimate acts such as hand-holding between 15 college male-female couples (Walter, 2008). Although the results showed an increase in oxytocin only in males, cortisol levels dropped for both males and females after kissing, supporting their hypothesis that kissing is a stress reliever.

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.

Too quick to judge? Maybe not.

by Jason Adler

pedalpalooza - bicycle speed dating by BikePortland.org

She seems down-to-earth. He is going to be annoying. That girl has to be rich. That guy must be outgoing. She is humorous. He is nice. She is definitely neurotic. That girl has to be dependable. These were my first impressions of my peers in my student fellow group less than 30 seconds after meeting them. Such thoughts are ubiquitous and indispensable in daily life, as when we first meet people, we instinctively judge and form conclusions in a brief amount of time. Whether or not first impressions really are everything, they are prevalent and are surprisingly accurate. Perceptions of traits are formed through the cognitive process of intuition based on seconds of behavior; a concept that can be referred to as thin slices.
In a study performed by Carney, Colvin, and Hall (2007) at Northeastern University, the accuracy of first impressions based on thin slices was examined by looking at judgments, thin slice length, and slice location. Three hundred student judges observed 30 subjects, 15 dyads (groups of two), engage in conversation and then judged social constructs by rating the subject’s traits on a scale. These social constructs included states of positive affect (happy) and negative affect (sad), cognitive ability, and the “Big Five” traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The thin slices, exposure of behavior, varied in time ranging from 5 to 300 seconds and the location of the thin slice was taken either at the beginning, middle, or end of the conversation. The trait perceptions of the student judges were then measured against trait perceptions from trained coders who were given specific items to measure constructs such as moody for neurotic or kind for agreeable. The researchers found that for every construct, the judges perceptions were significantly accurate, defined as much greater than chance, suggesting that thin slices lead to accurate impressions. In addition, the researchers generally found that thin slices taken later in the conversation were generally more accurate. Furthermore, increased exposure improves the accuracy of impressions for positive affect, extraversion, and agreeableness. However, increasing exposure does not improve the accuracy of conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, negative affect, and intelligence. The researchers surmised that all those traits fall into threat or intelligence and quick judgments of these traits are important to life or death situations (Run away or pet the tiger).

It is not surprising that if impressions of personality traits can be made using thin slices then accurate judgments regarding sexual orientation can also be made using brief observations. In a study performed by Ambady, Hallahan, and Conner (1999) judgments of sexual orientation were made based on a 10 second silent video clip, a one second silent video clip, or eight photographs. The results show that very accurate impressions of sexual orientation can be made using thin slices. Homosexual men and women seem to be better at identifying sexual orientation with diminishing amounts of information, while women, in general, are better at identifying sexual orientation at all levels. In addition, the judges made more accurate impressions when identifying lesbian women than gay men. A following study showed that even without static indicators such as jewelry and clothing, impressions are still very accurate. The researchers interpret that the ability to perceive traits regarding sexual orientation may be adaptive to finding romantic partners and reducing hostility.
Further research has also yielded valuable information regarding thin slices and first impressions. Ambady and Gray (2002) have shown  that sadness impairs the ability to draw behavioral inferences. Ambady and Gray propose that negative moods resulted in a more careful, deliberate study of behavior rather than intuitive process; a strategy that significantly reduces accuracy of trait perception and may explain why depression reduces sociability.

Where do religious beliefs come from?

by Matt Libassi

Photo by Minifig

Life after death has forever been a mystery among living peoples. Although this mystery may never be concluded from a scientific perspective, the causes and effects of these beliefs can be analyzed. There are many instances where our own spirituality may define our actions, philosophies, and sense of self, but where does this abstract belief come from? It seems like supernatural beliefs span across many time periods, from hunter and gatherers to modern societies, as well as across many cultural divides. Is it an innate characteristic of human beings to believe in the supernatural? Are these beliefs healthy to human societies? I wonder if animals also believe in these metaphysical states of being. It is interesting to think about how these beliefs affect our everyday actions, i.e. our respect for the dead, our morals (perhaps?), and our justifications to live a life.

Jesse M. Bering (2006) suggests that the belief in the supernatural may provide an evolutionary advantage that allows people to be more sympathetic. Bering conducted an experiment where children were shown a puppet show where an alligator eats a mouse and then asked questions about the mouse’s state of being. The youngest children of around five years old reasoned that the mouse didn’t need to eat or drink, but it was hungry and thirsty. The children believed that it still had psychological needs and carried emotions despite not having a body. I can’t help but wonder how much of the children’s reasoning is due to their innocence and naivety. Is this an innate belief in the afterlife or is it the simple, unique state of childhood.

I’d like to believe that all humans are born with compassion, but sometimes fear may drive these compassions to lead to desperate thinking and I question whether this is evolutionarily beneficial to the human race. An analysis conducted by Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff examined the “Belief in God’s” role on social behavior.  Interpreting data collected by anthropologists, sociologist, economists and psychologists, the authors argued that throughout history (up until modern times), there has been more cooperative behavior among religious societies then non-religious societies. This may sound evolutionary beneficial, especially regarding the survival of a group of a particular species, but this cooperative behavior may also run rampant, as seen in the many religious wars. Perhaps non-religious people have lived peacefully, yet unorganized, whilst religious groups are very organized and may combine forces to violently impose belief in others. To me, this scenario sounds counterproductive to a sustainable evolution process, but rather social-Darwinistic in nature.

References

Bering, J. M. (2006). The Cognitive Psychology of Belief in the Supernatural. American
Scientist,  94, 821, pp. 142-149 [Electronic version]. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/InstituteofCognitionCulture/FileUploadPage/Filetoupload,90224,en.pdf

MedIndia. (2008). Conducive Conditions in Belief in God Makes Us More Pro-Social.
MedIndia, Latest Health News. Retrieved October 17, 2008, from http://www.medindia.net/news/Conducive-Conditions-and-Belief-in-God-Makes-Us-More-Pro-social-42543-1.htm

social networks

by Clare Cene-Kush

Chances are, at one point or another, you’ve logged onto Facebook, scrolled down someone’s wall and seen that a person has over 300 friends at Vassar or some other school. Did you stop and think, is that even possible? If you did then you’re not alone. Evolutionary psychologists are asking the same question. Two recent studies suggest that humans only have the capacity for about 150 people in their social network (Dunbar, 2003) and that face-to-face contact is crucial for forming substantial, lasting friendships (Reader 2007). Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, suggests that social networking is a cognitive strategy that’s so important that natural selection has built it into our brains. It might sound ridiculous, but Dunbar believes that grooming amongst our primate ancestors was actually the first social networking application. It wasn’t exactly MySpace for monkeys, but it did allow primates to create and sustain friendships and a social hierarchy. Dunbar argues that language actually evolved as a faster way to construct and foster social relationships.
So is gossip in our genes? Maybe not, but it seems plausible when you consider how much we love to gossip on both a personal and societal level. Its no secret that we’re obsessed not just with the personal lives of celebrities from what Paris Hilton is wearing to what coffee Britney Spears is drinking. A recent article questions whether the Facebook phenomenon, like language was for our ancestors, is our way of expanding the maximum size of our social networks, something we haven’t accomplished in about 10,000 years. I’m skeptical as to whether social networking applications can actually increase the number of “real” friends people have, one scroll down my total list of friends on Facebook reveals that I don’t even know who some of them are. Then again, Reader’s study, which claims that people can only maintain about 5 truly close friends because of the time and emotional investment that these friendships require, never actually defines “close friends.” In my personal experience, the most meaningful friendships are the ones that occur offline. It’s much easier to tell if someone’s acting genuinely when you’re talking to him or her than if your simply reading what they wrote on your Facebook wall.