Published: December 12, 2011
For the first time, scientists have proven that cannabis harms the brain. But the same study challenges previously-held assumptions about use of the drug, showing that some brain irregularities predate drug use.
Professor Dan Lubman, from Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre and Monash University, along with a team of researchers from Melbourne University have conducted a world-first study examining whether these brain abnormalities represent markers of vulnerability to cannabis use.
“Previous evidence has shown that long-term heavy cannabis use is associated with alterations in regional brain volumes,” Professor Lubman said.
“Although these changes are frequently attributed to the neurotoxic effects of cannabis, no studies have examined whether structural brain abnormalities are present before the onset of cannabis use until now.”
To fill this void in present studies, Professor Lubman and his team recruited participants from primary schools in Melbourne, Australia, as part of a larger study examining adolescent emotional development.
Of the 155 original participants who underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging at age 12, 121 completed a follow-up survey measuring substance use four years later. It was found that by age 16, 28 participants had commenced using cannabis.
“This is an important developmental period to examine, because although not all individuals who initiate cannabis use during this time will go on to use heavily, early cannabis use has been associated with a range of negative outcomes later in life,” Professor Lubman said. [continue reading…]
Published: December 12, 2011
Why do we stick up for a system or institution we live in—a government, company, or marriage—even when anyone else can see it is failing miserably? Why do we resist change even when the system is corrupt or unjust? A new article in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science, illuminates the conditions under which we’re motivated to defend the status quo—a process called “system justification.”
System justification isn’t the same as acquiescence, explains Aaron C. Kay, a psychologist at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, who co-authored the paper with University of Waterloo graduate student Justin Friesen. “It’s pro-active. When someone comes to justify the status quo, they also come to see it as what should be.”
Reviewing laboratory and cross-national studies, the paper illuminates four situations that foster system justification: system threat, system dependence, system inescapability, and low personal control.
When we’re threatened we defend ourselves—and our systems. Before 9/11, for instance, President George W. Bush was sinking in the polls. But as soon as the planes hit the World Trade Center, the president’s approval ratings soared. So did support for Congress and the police. During Hurricane Katrina, America witnessed FEMA’s spectacular failure to rescue the hurricane’s victims. Yet many people blamed those victims for their fate rather than admitting the agency flunked and supporting ideas for fixing it. In times of crisis, say the authors, we want to believe the system works. [continue reading…]
Published: December 12, 2011
istockphoto
oliday shoppers, take note. Marketing and psychology researchers have found that in gift giving, bundling together an expensive “big” gift and a smaller “stocking stuffer” reduces the perceived value of the overall package for the recipient.
Suppose you’re trying to impress a loved one with a generous gift this holiday season, says Kimberlee Weaver, assistant professor of marketing in the Pamplin College of Business. One option is to buy them a luxury cashmere sweater. A second option is to add in a $10 gift card.
If their budget allows, most gift givers would choose the second option, as it comprises two gifts — one big, one small, Weaver says. Ironically, however, the gift recipient is likely to perceive the cashmere sweater alone as more generous than the combination of the same sweater and gift card. “The gift giver or presenter does not anticipate this difference in perspectives and has just cheapened the gift package by spending an extra $10 on it.”
Weaver is part of a research team that recently discovered, through a series of studies, what the team has called the “Presenter’s Paradox.” The paradox arises because gift givers and gift recipients have different perspectives, Weaver says. Gift givers follow a “more-is-better” logic; recipients evaluate the overall package. [continue reading…]
Published: December 12, 2011
Study Participants at Risk for Alzheimer’s Want to Know Their Potential Fate
If you had a family history of developing Alzheimer’s disease, would you take a genetic test that would give you more information about your chances?
“Definitely,” said Gloria VanAlstine, 60, and Joyce Smith, 79. The two women took a controversial genetic test of a gene called Apolipoprotein E. APOE is a susceptibility gene where certain variants have been found to significantly increase a person’s risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Both women have a family history of Alzheimer’s, which increases risk.
The genetic test was conducted as part of the Risk Evaluation and Education for Alzheimer’s disease Study (REVEAL), a series of clinical trials taking place at U-M School of Public Health, with other sites including Harvard University, Howard University, and the University of Pennsylvania. [continue reading…]
