Published: December 13, 2011
Does she or doesn’t she . . .? Sexual cues are ambiguous, and confounding. We—especially men—often read them wrong. A new study hypothesizes that the men who get it wrong might be the ones that evolution has favored. “There are tons of studies showing that men think women are interested when they’re not,” says Williams College psychologist Carin Perilloux, who conducted the research with Judith A. Easton and David M. Buss of University of Texas at Austin. “Ours is the first to systematically examine individual differences.” The findings will appear in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science.
The research involved 96 male 103 female undergraduates, who were put through a “speed-meeting” exercise—talking for three minutes to each of five potential opposite-sex mates. Before the conversations, the participants rated themselves on their own attractiveness and were assessed for the level of their desire for a short-term sexual encounter. After each “meeting,” they rated the partner on a number of measures, including physical attractiveness and sexual interest in the participant. The model had the advantage of testing the participants in multiple interactions.
The results: Men looking for a quick hookup were more likely to overestimate the women’s desire for them. Men who thought they were hot also thought the women were hot for them—but men who were actually attractive, by the women’s ratings, did not make this mistake. The more attractive the woman was to the man, the more likely he was to overestimate her interest. And women tended to underestimate men’s desire. [continue reading…]
Published: December 13, 2011
Children who have a parent with bipolar disorder are more likely to display symptoms of affective and behavioral dysfunction than are children who do not have a parent with the condition, a study headed by Rasim Diler of the University of Pittsburgh and published in the November-December issue of Bipolar Disorders has found.
And another recent study has shown that these children are at risk for a variety of psychiatric illnesses—anxiety disorders, major depression, and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, among others. For more details about this study, see the December 2 Psychiatric News here.
The good news, however, is that even though bipolar disorder has a strong heritable component, a substantial number of children of parents with bipolar disorder do not experience the illness themselves.
Source: American Psychiatric Association
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…]
