Your mind needs you!

Simon McCarthy-Jones argues that Psychologists must help to develop and protect our right to freedom of thought.

12 February 2025


As psychologists, our mission to unravel the complexities of the human mind carries profound responsibilities. Our insights can promote human dignity, autonomy and support democratic self-government. Yet, these same insights can be misused by those seeking profit and power, enabling new forms of control.

Our profession bears the responsibility of mitigating such risks, especially when they stem from our own discoveries. One particularly powerful way we can meet our responsibilities is through actively contributing to the development of the fundamental human right to freedom of thought. With the United Nations recently revisiting this right after more than 70 years of neglect, we have an unparalleled opportunity to influence its evolution.
Encroaching on the autonomy of the mind

Psychological techniques have long been used to manipulate minds by bypassing rational thought. As far back as the 1920s, Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) and the behaviourist John Watson were leveraging psychological insights to manipulate consumers into buying products, including cigarettes. Modern advertisers use newer research, such as Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky's work on heuristics, to push people into quick, intuitive buying choices.

Similarly, psychological knowledge is used to shape voting behaviour, impacting both candidate preference and voter turnout (Haenschen, 2023; Zarouali et al., 2022) – as brought to the public consciousness by the Cambridge Analytica fiasco. Such fledgling efforts are likely to be turbo-charged by the power of artificial intelligence (AI). With extensive data on human behaviour in general, potentially aided by individualised profiles, AI can tailor messages precisely to maximise their influence (Matz et al., 2024) with no requirement that this respect or engage our ability to think rationally.

Psychological techniques are also increasingly exposing the once private realm of the mind. Personal stances on a range of issues can be inferred from observable behaviours, such as Facebook likes (Kosinski et al., 2013). As neuroscientific research into inferring or decoding thoughts from neural activity advances (Chen et al., 2024), many foresee a future threat to mental privacy (Ligthart et al., 2022). This work frequently receives significant funding from both tech companies or governmental defence agencies (McCarthy-Jones, 2023).

We are, then, living amidst 'Manhattan Projects' of the mind, which not only threaten to know us better than we know ourselves but also to weaponise this knowledge against us.
Legal developments

In response to these and other threats, there has been a revived interest among legal scholars in the right to freedom of thought. One might assume, as I did, that the law would have already clearly operationalised this right, much like the extensive body of law on the right to freedom of speech. Alas not. Although the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights established a formal right to freedom of thought, there remains a major gap between the frequent praise for this right and the minimal discussion of its specifics. As it stands, freedom of thought is an underdeveloped and largely hollow right.

To address this problem, the United Nations published a landmark report in 2021, putting flesh on the bones of the right to freedom of thought (Shaheed, 2021). This report emphasised that people should not be forced to reveal their thoughts, not be punished for their thoughts, not have their thoughts impermissibly altered, and that governments should foster an enabling environment for thought. Scholars, primarily from the legal profession, are now debating what these proposals mean in practice and how this right should be instantiated.
The role of Psychology

Psychology could potentially leave it up to the legal profession to adjudicate what this right should mean. The judges would decide and the likes of us abide. But it is unimaginable that psychologists have nothing to add to this discussion. Our discipline's expertise is crucial to developing effective ways to protect and promote free thought. Furthermore, this right is likely to have a substantial effect on psychological practice, particularly on mental health treatment (O'Callaghan et al., 2024), meaning we need to get onto this debate at the ground floor.

This is not to suggest that that the legal profession's conception of thought must align perfectly with our understanding as psychologists (Ligthart et al., 2022). Insisting that the law protect our psychological conception of 'thought' would disregard the real-world balancing of interests and concerns that the law must address. However, we should not allow the legal profession to unilaterally determine our role in this process. Some legal scholars argue that 'the role of science' is to 'not to provide us with the basic legal concepts' (Ligthart et al., 2022). While there is merit to this perspective, if the right to freedom of thought is to do what it says on the tin, and protect thought, someone needs to hold Law's feet to the fire. This should be us. No-one puts science in the corner.

So, what can psychology offer, in the spirit of interdisciplinary collaboration (McCarthy-Jones, 2021), to the development of this right? Two obvious places to start are the scope of the right – what should be considered as 'thought'; and the nature of the right – what constitutes a violation.
What is thought?

Psychologists can highlight the diverse ways in which we conceptualise 'thought', helping the legal profession to determine what should fall within the scope of the right to freedom of thought. Generally, the law conceives of thought as something that happens inside our heads, in a 'forum internum'. Conversely, the law considers happenings outside of the head, in the 'forum externum', to be within the realm of speech.

Psychology challenges this neat distinction by viewing thinking as extending beyond the confines of the skull into the external world. The philosopher Joel Walmsley and I have termed this 'forum externum thought' (McCarthy-Jones & Walmsley, 2024). This concept builds on the claim by philosophers Andy Clark and David Chalmers that 'cognitive processes ain't (all) in the head' (Clark & Chalmers, 1998). According to them, if a process in the external world would be considered thought if it were occurring inside our head, then it qualifies as thought.

Following this reasoning, using a pen and paper to perform calculations constitutes thinking, even though it happens outside our heads. For someone with dementia, a notebook may function as their memory. Writing can also be considered thought, rather than merely an expression of thought. As Carruthers (1998) puts it, in some cases 'the thinking is the writing'. For example, in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, protagonist Winston Smith thinks by undertaking the forbidden act of writing in his diary. Likewise, certain uses of internet search engines or conversations with ChatGPT can arguably be forms of thinking.

Deciding whether to include 'forum externum thought' within the scope of the right to freedom of thought is no mere academic exercise. Unlike the right to freedom of expression, which is a qualified right that can be limited for reasons such as national security or public health, the right to freedom of thought is an absolute right. This means there can never be a justification for interfering with someone's freedom of thought.

If diary writing or certain internet searches, for example, are deemed to be 'thought', they would receive absolute legal protection. Courts could no longer access your diary or elements of your internet search history, which remain would remain permanently sealed to the prying eyes of the state. Thus, the legal definition of 'thought' carries profound practical implications.

Clearly, this doesn't mean that everything people do on the internet can be claimed as 'thought' and hidden from authorities. However, it does mean acknowledging that some of our internet searching is 'thought' and deserves protection as such. Practically, this perspective could push back again legislation, such as Section 3 of the UK Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, whose proscriptions on internet searching led the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy to accuse the UK government of pushing towards 'thought crime' (Zedner, 2021).

Another example of thinking occurring outside our skulls is when we speak with others.

Cognition is socially distributed. Research shows that group problem-solving, such as when tackling the famous 'Linda paradox', can be more effective than individual efforts (Charness et al., 2010). Thought is particularly powerful when groups of individuals with diverse viewpoints come together in a good faith debate to uncover the truth. This shows that thought is not merely an isolated, internal, individual experience, as Rodin's famous statue The Thinker might suggest.

Thought is social, as psychologists such as Lev Vygotsky have long emphasised. Ignoring this aspect would leave much thought unprotected. We should seriously consider how to extend the right to freedom of thought to cover our collaborative thinking together, which we might term 'thoughtspeech' (McCarthy-Jones, 2024), while ensuring this aligns with human dignity and existing hate speech legislation.

This proposal also forces us to consider why thought is currently given absolute legal protection. Is it merely because thoughts in the head are deemed unable to harm others directly, thus warranting complete freedom? This is an argument from impotence. Alternatively, is it because thought is so vital that we do not want to place any limits on it, even if it can cause harm? This is an argument from importance. We need to decide just how committed we are to free thought, acknowledging that opinions will likely vary.
What makes thought free?

Psychology can also elucidate what makes thought-free. A clear conceptual grounding for what makes thought free is essential to for principled identifications of violations of this right.

Psychology can help explain how specific cognitive processes, such as attention, reasoning and reflection, support thought. Sustained and selective attention, for example, is central to reasoned, and hence free thought. This means disruptions by 'attention merchants' (Wu, 2017), who hijack our attention, can be seen as impairing our freedom of thought.

Similarly, pushing individuals into heuristic-based System 1 thought, while deterring slow, deliberative System 2 thought, should also constitute an offence against free thought. Denying opportunities for reflection also encourages heuristic-based thinking. Here psychology can advise on what an 'autonomy-supportive context' (Chatzisarantis et al., 2009) does and does not look like.

We can also examine how people and systems raise barriers to free thinking by increasing the level of courage needed to think freely. US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis emphasised not simply the power of reasoning, but specifically the power of 'free and fearless reasoning'. Courage, said Brandeis, was the secret of liberty.

However, when activists lobby for the termination of a thinker's employment, foolhardiness rather than courage becomes a precondition for free thought. As philosopher Bertrand Russell (1922) saw, 'thought is not free if the profession of certain opinions makes it impossible to earn a living.'

Psychological research into conformity, social influence and trust can help design systems that promote and protect rather than deter free thought. Nevertheless, thought will not be free until employment law recognises and protects employees' right to freedom of thought.

Collectively, I call Attention, Reason, Reflection and Courage the 'ARRC of free thought'. This represents an initial effort to show how psychology can help explain what the key components of thought are, aiding the complex task of determining when mental influence should be deemed impermissible. Recent legislation highlights the urgency of this question.

For example, the EU's recent Digital Services Act states that online platforms shall not 'design, organise or operate their online interfaces in a way that deceives or manipulates the recipients of their service or in a way that otherwise materially distorts or impairs the ability of the recipients of their service to make free and informed decisions'. But what constitutes manipulation?

Legal scholar Jan Christoph Bublitz (2014) emphasises that defining legitimate and illegitimate ways to influence thought will be a crucial societal question in this century. Psychology must help answer this question.
The tools and the duty

In summary, after 70 years of waiting, the right to freedom of thought is finally taking shape. Psychologists must engage in the ongoing discussion about this right's nature and scope to influence its trajectory effectively. We have both the tools and the duty to make a substantive contribution to the legal protection of the human mind. All that remains is for psychologists to step up to the challenge. We may not agree on the answers, but we can certainly agree on the importance of being involved in the search for them.

Dr Simon McCarthy-Jones is an Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology and Neuropsychology in the Department of Psychiatry at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland

SOURCE:

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/your-mind-needs-you(accessed 19.2.25)

Εφηβεία: Ας μιλήσουμε για τους γονείς, την απώλεια της αγκαλιάς και της επικοινωνίας που βιώνουν

THE MAMAGERS TEAM29 ΔΕΚΕΜΒΡΙΟΥ, 2024

×



Πονάει η εφηβεία; Είναι μια στενάχωρη περίοδος; Για τα παιδιά είναι μια αγχωτική αλλά και πολύ ενδιαφέρουσα περιόδος στη ζωή τους. Περνούν αλλαγές, κάνουν τα πρώτα βήματα ανεξαρτητοποίησης, απομυθοποιούν τους γονείς, επαναστατούν, επικοινωνούν περισσότερο με τους συνομήλικούς τους, μαθαίνουν τον εαυτό τους και το σώμα τους από την αρχή. Για τους γονείς, όμως;


Οι γονείς που έχουν μάθει στις αγκαλιές. Έχουν συνηθίσει τα “σ’αγαπώ μαμά” και τα “έλα να σου πω τι έγινε σήμερα στο σχολείο”. Κι όλα αλλάζουν. Τα παιδιά κλείνουν την πόρτα του δωματίου τους, ακούν μουσική και μιλάνε στα social media με τους φίλους τους. Οι γονείς δεν ξέρουν τι κάνουν όλη μέρα, με ποιους κάνουν παρέα, που πάνε, τι τους ενδιαφέρει και τι τους απασχολεί.

Είναι μια μορφή απώλειας. Στερείσαι ξαφνικά τη στενή επαφή με τα παιδιά σου. Κι όταν τα πλησιάζεις απομακρύνονται. Τι κάνεις; Ο εκπαιδευτικός Μάριος Μάζαρης έκανε μια ανάρτηση για το ζήτημα αυτό και όπως πρότεινε καλό είναι να θυμηθείς τη δική σου εφηβεία: “Όταν ήσουν έφηβος, πώς ένιωθες; πάμε να θυμηθούμε την ανάγκη της αγκαλιάς σε αυτές τις ηλικίες. Γίνεται με άλλους τρόπους, συμβολικούς, είναι εκεί και περιμένει. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, μην ανησυχήσεις προκαταβολικά, Δεν έκανες κάτι κακό στο μεγάλωμα του παιδιού σου, ούτε σε σιχαίνεται στην εφηβεία του!”.

Περιγράφοντας την εμπειρία ενός μπαμπά με έφηβη κόρη, έγραψε:











Με λίγα λόγια, γονείς εφήβων: ψυχραιμία και υπομονή, γονείς μικρών παιδιών: αγκαλιάστε τα όσο περισσότερο μπορείτε, η εφηβεία μια μέρα θα χτυπήσει και τη δική σας πόρτα!

ΠΗΓΗ:

https://www.themamagers.gr/kid-issues/teenagers/goneisefivia/(accessed 12.2.25)

Learning the details: when honoring the past liberates the creativity in the present.

Antonio Sama relates how the archive inspired a new relationship with his mentor.
Professional DevelopmentAbout usThought piecesArchive


Posted

20 December 2018
Key people
Antonio Sama



Pesca del pescespada a Scilla, 1949 by Renato Guttuso



I was invited recently to contribute to a collective book in memory of my late mentor and friend Professor Giovanni Mastroianni, who died in August 2016. This was intended as a collection of memories from his students from his native city Catanzaro (in Calabria, Southern Italy). I was asked for a fifteen page chapter narrating and explaining the role and influence he and his teaching had on my personal and professional development.

Among the various avenues (personal memories, key facts in our relationship, key learning on my part etc.) at my disposal for engaging with this request I found that a fit (and for me, perhaps, safer?) tribute would be to explore and expand the implication of his teaching in my current professional identity as an academic (Senior Lecturer in Management and Leadership) and an organisational consultant (rooted in the Tavistock’s traditions). This was a natural and appropriate area of reflection and enquiry for my contribution to the Tavistock Institute Archive project and to the AOM symposium, led by Jean Neumann, on opening the Archive.

The question that guided my writing (aligned with some of the work of the Archive Group and my joint reflection and enquiries with Jean and Juliet Scott) was ‘How can I translate (customize?) his teaching and influence on my contribution to the Archive Project and its various spin offs?’. This question immediately made my article another of the Archive Project spin offs.

In the paper Juliet and I prepared for the AOM symposium (A Polyphonic Dialogue with the TIHR Archive: Working with the Past, Present and Future as Organisational Development and Customization of TIHR traditions) I engaged with some of Bakhtin’s concepts in order to explore and understand what we did with the history of the Institute and how we, as a pair, and the larger community of Tavistockians created meaningful dialogues with it.

I found that the concept of ‘polyphony’ was very appropriate and allowed for meaning to be constructed, a working hypothesis to be generated and a course of actions to be tested. In doing so I was applying (‘translating’, ‘using’, and ‘importing’) a concept Bakhtin generated to understand and explain the innovation Dostoevsky developed for the western novel to a case of organisational intervention. I have to thank Juliet for seeing a role of this thinking in our work and agreeing to it.

At the symposium the dialogical view point, as well as others from other colleagues presenting, attracted some interest and questions were asked. The focus of these questions, and the Bakhtin’s work that was quoted, left me with the impression (and feeling) that only one part of the Russian scholar legacy was brought in the room. It was the Bakhtin ‘literature and cultural scholar’ with no reference to the other Bakhtin: the ethical philosopher. I was left with the question ‘Is there a predominant and accepted approach to Bakhtin’s work in organisational discourse that includes only a part of his legacy and that can be deemed incomplete?’

My mentor had studied the ‘Bakhtin’s questions’ since the mid-1990s and was among the most respected Italian scholars on the matter. From my mentor I learned to appreciate the study of details and its importance in understanding the origin of ideas and the history of the philosophical legacy of scholars. What more than a fitter tribute would be to explore when, how and what Bakhtin entered the discourse of organisational studies and intervention?

My chapter was thus written and given to the editors; its title is Noterelle per un (in)certo Bachtin negli studi organizzativi (con un’appendice personale) [Short notes for a (un)certain Bakhtin in organisational studies (with a personal appendix)].

Here I would like to share the two quotations that open the chapter:


A dwarf standing on the shoulder of a giant may see farther than a giant himself.


Burton, Anatomy of Melancholy


Someone calls to me from Seir, ‘Watchman, what is left of the night? Watchman, what is left of the night?’

The watchman replies, ‘Morning is coming, but also the night. If you would ask, then ask; and come back yet again.’


Isaiah (21, 11-12)

SOURCE:

https://www.tavinstitute.org/news/learning-the-details-when-honoring-the-past-liberates-the-creativity-in-the-present(accessed 12.2.25)

Do honesty oaths really make us behave honestly?

A new study finds that when asking someone to swear honesty, phrasing matters.

27 January 2025

By Emma Young


Could simply making a promise to be honest encourage people to behave in an honest way, even when there's a temptation to lie? A recent study in Nature Human Behaviour suggests that it can — but the precise nature of the promise matters.

Janis H Zickfield at Aarhus University, Denmark, and colleagues used a tax evasion game to measure dishonesty among a total of more than 21,000 participants from the UK and US. These participants completed online tasks to earn money, then were asked to report how much they had made. These earnings would be taxed at 35%. To avoid this high toll, however, the participants could lie about their earnings, and so reduce the amount of tax that they had to pay, without any repercussions.

At some point during the game, they were also all asked to make one of a total of 21 'honesty oaths' — or, for the control group, to make no oath at all. For 20 of these interventions, the most basic oath (eg. 'I hereby declare I will provide honest information') followed another more complex statement which emphasised anything from the need to earn the trust of fellow citizens to the idea that honesty is a community responsibility.

The timing of these oaths also varied. Some participants made them before embarking on their tasks, while others did it just before declaring their income. The format varied, too, with some participants being asked just to tick a box to indicate their endorsement, while others had to type the statement in full.

When the team analysed the results, they found that overall, a quarter of participants under-reported their income to some degree. Almost a third of this group falsely declared having received no income at all.

According to further analyses, not all honesty oaths are created equal. Of the 21 oaths, 11 had no impact on income honesty. These were generally of a type that referenced the individual's moral character, or alluded vaguely to their social responsibilities — such as 'I am an honest person' or 'Honesty fosters trust in society'. The list of failed oaths also included statements that emphasised the threat to a person's self-image or the guilt they would feel if they were dishonest.

However, the remaining 10 oaths did boost income honesty. The most effective of these almost halved the lost tax from to 11.6%, compared to 21% in the no-oath control group. The winning oath explicitly linked honesty to reporting income — 'I hereby declare that I will provide honest income when reporting my final income from the sorting task.'

Other effective oaths included statements that framed honesty as being all or nothing ('Either the reporting is honest or it is not') or specified social costs of dishonesty, such as a reduction in funds that would go to the Red Cross. These clear, specific statements made it harder to the participants to justify lying about their income to themselves, the team thinks.

These results fit with work in motivational psychology, finding that reducing the ambiguity of a goal helps people to achieve it, and with findings that specific rules are more effective at reducing dishonesty than general rules.

The team also found that the method of making the oath had some impact. Though this did not hold across the board, when the most effective oath plus one other, on responsibility ('I understand it is my responsibility to report honestly') were typed out, rather than endorsed by ticking a box, they were more effective at encouraging honesty. Presumably this is because these participants were forced to think more about what they were endorsing.

The timing of the oath didn't make much of a difference to honesty, but oaths were slightly more effective when they were made immediately before a participant reported their income. "This suggests that connecting the honesty oath as closely as possible to the behaviour to be influenced might be helpful," the team writes.

It's worth noting that none of the oaths completely eliminated dishonesty. In the real world, though, just reducing it could have major implications. In the UK, tax evasion costs the government an estimated £5 billion per year, for example — though as anyone in the UK who has completed a self-assessment tax form will know, one of the final steps is to tick a box stating that the information given in the form is honest. Concrete and specific honesty oaths, required at the time a decision is made, might be effective in other areas of life, too, however — in workplaces, for example.

"While other honesty interventions, such as audits or punishment, might be effective in specific contexts, the current study offers evidence that honesty oaths can serve as low-key, cost-effective interventions to curb dishonesty," the researchers conclude.

Read the paper in full:

Zickfeld, J. H., Ścigała, K. A., Elbæk, C. T., Michael, J., Tønnesen, M. H., Levy, G., Ayal, S., Thielmann, I., Nockur, L., Peer, E., Capraro, V., Barkan, R., Bø, S., Bahník, Š., Nosenzo, D., Hertwig, R., Mazar, N., Weiss, A., Koessler, A.-K., & Montal-Rosenberg, R. (2024). Effectiveness of ex ante honesty oaths in reducing dishonesty depends on content. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02009-0

SOURCE:

https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/do-honesty-oaths-really-make-us-behave-honestly(accessed 5.2.25)

Cracking the joke

Dr Gil Greengross rethinks the health benefits of humour and laughter.

27 January 2025


When the famed journalist and author Norman Cousins was diagnosed with a severe form of arthritis, his doctors gave him only 1 in 500 chance of recovery. Unfazed, he developed an unusual way to combat the disease. Along with megadoses of Vitamin C, he decided that laughter would aid his healing. Cousins watched funny shows such as Candid Camera and numerous comedy films (he was a big fan of the Marx Brothers).

Cousins claimed that laughter had an analgetic effect on him, enabling him to sleep pain-free. Though he later downplayed the role of humour and laugher in his recovery and acknowledged that conventional medicine likely cured him (he took every medicine prescribed by his doctors), Cousins' 1979 book, Anatomy of an Illness as Perceived by the Patient, lunched the laughter therapy movement(Cousins, 1979).

Since Cousins publicised his experiences with laughter therapy, many have joined the 'humour is healthy' bandwagon. You've probably seen headlines about the healing power of humour. Many books, websites, and organisations (e.g., the Association for Applied and Therapeutic Humor) promote this idea, promising that more laughter and humour in your life will lead to better health.

Over the years, advocates have suggested that humour can reduce pain, boost the immune system, improve cardiovascular function, and even cure cancer and AIDS (Martin, 2001; Martin, 2008). Some of these claims are extraordinary – and it's easy to connect humour to any health issue. We also need to be clear what we're talking about here – there are times when we smile or laugh without humour, or find something funny without smiling and laughing. And humour also has a dark side – it can be used to mock others or perpetuate racism and sexism.

Despite these nuances, for most people, humour is a positive experience, and humour, smiling and laughter typically occur together. Each is believed to contribute uniquely to our health. We cannot rely on anecdotal evidence, like Cousins' experience. But there is a fair amount of research on the topic that merits attention, beginning with the effects of humour on the immune system.
Humour and the immune system

There is some evidence that watching a humorous film can boost immunity and reduce allergic reactions (Kimata, 2004a). Typical studies measure changes in allergic responses or antibodies before and after participants are exposed to humour, comparing them to a non-humorous control. A few studies have found increased immune responses after watching a funny film. Interestingly, these effects are not exclusive to humour – they are also observed when people listen to classical music or feel sadness (Martin & Ford, 2018). Conversely, moderate stress, like writing an email or playing video games, tends to suppress the immune response, increasing allergic reactions (Kimata, 2004b).

However, the effects of humour on immunity are often overstated. For example, one highly cited study found that watching 60-minute comedy video increases the production of several immunity-related components, such as natural killer cells, compared to the control group who quietly sat in a room for an hour (Berk et al., 1989). This study received significant media attention at the time and is frequently referenced by proponents of 'humour is healthy' movement. Yet, what is rarely mentioned is that the experimental and control groups each included only five participants The authors reported their results transparently, but this highlights how easily humour's health effects can be exaggerated.
Humour and pain relief

Perhaps the most robust evidence for humour's therapeutic effects lies in its ability to reduce pain. Exposure to humorous content, such as funny films, tends to increase pain tolerance. A common method involves the Cold Pressor Test, where participants immerse their hand in ice water for as long as they can tolerate. Changes in blood pressure and heart rate are often measured alongside.

Interestingly, neutral stimuli like relaxation music or lectures can yield similar increases in pain tolerance as listening to a comedy performance (Cogan et al., 1987). Importantly, the analgetic effect of humour is tied to genuine emotional response. Researchers distinguish between Duchenne smiles and laughter (associated with genuine joy) and fake smiles and laughter. Only genuine laughter stimulates endorphins release, which provide pain relief (Dunbar et al., 2012; Zweyer et al., 2004).

So, while Cousins' experiences were anecdotal, his claim that laughter relieved his pain has some validity. However, it wasn't laughter itself, but the accompanying mirthful emotional response that provided relief. Moreover, such effects are short-lived; Cousins himself acknowledged that laughter gave him only two pain-free hours of sleep.
Other health claims about laughter

Many people believe in the healing power of laughter, and its alleged health benefits gained popularity when an Indian doctor, Madan Kataria, created the first laughter yoga club in 1995. Since its introduction, numerous laughter clubs have been established worldwide, where people gather to laugh as much as possible – even in the absence of humorous stimuli – in the hope of improving their health and happiness.

Proponents of laughter yoga claim that laughing offers many health benefits, but studies on the topic are riddled with methodological problems and low-quality evidence. Overall, the conclusion is that there is insufficient proof to support claims that laughter contributes significantly to mental health (Bressington et al., 2018).

Take for example, the popular claim that laughter functions as a form of aerobic exercise, comparable to intense exercise (Fry Jr., 1992). According to this idea, several minutes of intense laughter – common amongst laughter yoga clubs – can increase heart rate and oxygen consumption, purportedly matching the benefits of using rowing machine or stationary bike for 10-15 minutes. Laugh a lot, and you will have an excuse to skip your morning gym session.

However, lab studies using indirect calorimeter to measure energy expenditure show that natural laughter with friends only increases energy expenditure by 10–20 per cent compared to resting values, burning a maximum of 40 calories (Buchowski et al., 2007). This is equivalent to light activities such as writing or playing cards – not what most of us envision when trying to get into shape. Even when participants are asked to laugh deliberately (as in laughter yoga), calorimeter readings indicate they burn about 3 calories per minute – similar to shaving or cleaning the house (though likely more enjoyable than either of those activities).
Humour and longevity

One curious claim is that humour can prolong life. Like many other proposed health benefits of humour, this claim seems reasonable and, on the surface, makes sense. Being cheerful, having a humorous outlook on life, and laughing frequently could potentially add years to our lives. However, as with many other claims, the evidence does not support this idea.

In the famous and longest-running longitudinal study in psychology, the Terman Study of the Gifted, initiated in 1921, researchers followed gifted children for decades. They found that kids rated by their parents and teachers as having a better sense of humour were more likely to smoke, drink alcohol, and die younger than those with less humour (Friedman et al., 1993). Since this is a correlational study, many confounding factors could be at play. More humorous and cheerful children also tended to be less neurotic, which have led them to take health risks less seriously, engage in riskier behaviours, and discount the dangers of their unhealthy choices compared to their less cheerful peers.

Consistent with this research, which shows that individuals with a greater sense of humor tend to engage in less healthy lifestyle behaviors, another (much shorter) longitudinal study of Finnish police officers found that higher scores on humor scales were associated with greater obesity, increased smoking, and higher risk factors for cardiovascular disease (Kerkkanen et al., 2004).

Comedians might be a useful group to study, as they use humour more often than most people. However, the findings are quite consistent, showing that comedians and comedy writers die younger than actors and other celebrities who aren't entertainers (Rotton, 1992; Stewart & Thompson, 2015; Stewart et al., 2016). In comedy duos, the 'funny man' is significantly more likely to die younger than the 'straight man' (Stewart & Thompson, 2015). As with any correlational study, confounding variables likely play a role. Comedians are more prone to unhealthy lifestyles, drug use, and social pressure, all of which could affect their health more significantly than their sense of humour.

In my own research into improv artists, I found that they report more infectious diseases compared to a matched sample from the general population. This study controlled for factors such as age, BMI, antibiotic use, and neuroticism, a known trait affecting self-reported health (Greengross & Martin, 2018). As with stand-up comedians, it is likely that improv artists experience more frequent social interactions, higher stress, and extensive work-related travel, all of which negatively impact their health, leaving humour with little measurable effect on their well-being.

Most research on longevity and humour has focused on people with either exceptional intelligence (gifted children) or exceptional humour ability (comedians and improv artists). But what about the health benefits of humour for more ordinary people? In one longitudinal study of patients with kidney failure, those with a humorous outlook on life had 31 per cent higher odds of surviving after two years (Svebak et al., 2006). While this suggests that humour might serve as a useful coping mechanism, caution is warranted, as the study included only 41 patients.

Another longitudinal study with a much larger sample of over 50,000 people, followed participants for 15 years. It found that only the cognitive component of humour (i.e., recognising that a humorous event occurs) was associated with lower mortality; the social (saying funny things, making others laugh) and affective (being a mirthful person, having a humorous outlook on life) components showed no effect (Romundstad et al., 2016). Moreover, the association was driven entirely by low-scoring women dying earlier, while high-humour men and women did not live longer. Such findings are, at best, tentative and inconclusive regarding humour's potential health benefits.
The long-lasting effect of a smile

What about the potential health benefits of smiling? Smiling can be seen as a milder form of laughter, lacking most of the physiological changes associated with it. However, smiling may serve as an indicator of positive feelings and, more broadly, a positive attitude toward life –both of which could potentially lead to better health.

One study examined the photographs of 196 baseball players featured in a 1952 baseball almanac (Abel & Kruger, 2010). Decades later, the researchers categorised the intensity and authenticity of their players' smiles and tracked down their survival. After controlling for demographic variables such as age, education, marital status, BMI, and career length, they found that players with more intense Duchenne (genuine) smiles lived longer and were half as likely to die in any given year compared to those with fake or no smiles.

While these findings are encouraging, a subsequent replication study with a much larger sample from the same almanac failed to find any association between smiling and mortality after accounting for birth year (Dufner et al., 2018). Despite its more rigorous methodology, this study has far fewer citations and has received significantly less attention from the media. The earlier study showing positive results, garners more interest – perhaps because people are drawn to the idea of the healing power of smiling.

But not all is lost when it comes to smiling. Another study analysed the smile intensity of individuals in college yearbooks from 1945-2005 and found that those with Duchenne smiles were less likely to divorce decades later (Hertenstein et al., 2009). As with other correlational studies, the exact mechanism behind the association is unclear. It could be that happier people smile more, which helps them navigate marital conflicts and endure long-term relationships. Alternatively, smiley people may have more positive attitudes, allowing them to attract partners who foster stable relationships. Your guess is as good as mine.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence

There are many popular beliefs about how humour and laughter can make us healthier. I hope this review has highlighted some of the nuances surrounding humour and health. The picture is more complicated than it is often portrayed, and there is little solid evidence to suggest that humour and laughter have significant health benefits. Most claims of health benefits are exaggerated, making for appealing media stories, but much of the research in this area is methodologically flawed. These studies often lack proper controls, rely on correlational data, use small samples, and, above all, demonstrate only small, short-term effects with no clear clinical significance.

Some may ask, 'OK, so the alleged health benefits of humour are inflated – what's the harm?' While humour may seem innocuous, there are potential downsides to believing it can significantly improve health. Comedy may give hope to people desperate to feel better, but it's clearly no substitute for clinically proven treatments.

Second, oversimplification around the health benefits of humour and laughter may discourage researchers from conducting studies in the field, fearing their findings could be distorted by the media or exploited for commercial purposes. As scientists, we must remain open to new ideas while demanding rigorous research that addresses the shortcomings of much of the current work in the field. The same scepticism should apply (Martin & Ford, 2018) to research which extends beyond health benefits to claim that humour facilitate learning, aids memory retention, increases productivity, and more. Extraordinary claims about the power of humour require extraordinary evidence.
Laugh for very joy…

In 1925, some scientists predicted that, in 100 years there would be nothing left in the world to laugh about ("We'll Laugh for Very Joy," 1925). Thankfully, they were wrong – there are still countless reasons to embrace humour. There is strong evidence that humour is beneficial for mental health, primarily as a coping mechanism to reduce stress. Humour also enhances social relationships and is an attractive trait in potential mates. Even if it doesn't make us significantly healthier, it's fun and enriching, and we should enjoy it for its own sake. But as psychologists, it is only through more robust research that we will ensure the joke isn't on us.Dr Gil Greengross is a Lecturer in Psychology at Aberystwyth University.

The Editor of The Psychologist, Dr Jon Sutton, is a Trustee for the Big Difference charity, who run the Leicester Comedy Festival and UK Kids Comedy Festival. The events take place 5-23 February. If you have a psychological perspective on comedy (particularly live) and humour, he would love to hear from you on jon.sutton@bps.org.uk.
References

Abel, E. L., & Kruger, M. L. (2010). Smile Intensity in Photographs Predicts Longevity. Psychological Science, 21(4), 542–544.

Berk, L. S., Tan, S. A., Fry, W. F., Napier, B. J., Lee, J. W., Hubbard, R. W., Lewis, J. E., & Eby, W. C. (1989). Neuroendocrine and stress hormone changes during mirthful laughter. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 298, 390-396.

Bressington, D., Yu, C., Wong, W., Ng, T. C., & Chien, W. T. (2018). The effects of group‐based Laughter Yoga interventions on mental health in adults: A systematic review. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 25(8), 517-527.

Buchowski, M., Majchrzak, K., Blomquist, K., Chen, K., Byrne, D., & Bachorowski, J. (2007). Energy expenditure of genuine laughter. International Journal of Obesity, 31(1), 131-137.

Cogan, R., Cogan, D., Waltz, W., & McCue, M. (1987). Effects of laughter and relaxation on discomfort thresholds. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10(2), 139-144.

Cousins, N. (1979). Anatomy of an illness as perceived by the patient: reflexions on healing and regeneration. W. W. Norton and Co.

Dufner, M., Brümmer, M., Chung, J. M., Drewke, P. M., Blaison, C., & Schmukle, S. C. (2018). Does smile intensity in photographs really predict longevity? A replication and extension of Abel and Kruger (2010). Psychological Science, 29(1), 147-153.

Dunbar, R. I., Baron, R., Frangou, A., Pearce, E., Van Leeuwen, E. J., Stow, J., Partridge, G., MacDonald, I., Barra, V., & Van Vugt, M. (2012). Social laughter is correlated with an elevated pain threshold. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279(1731), 1161-1167.

Friedman, H. S., Tucker, J. S., Tomlinson-Keasey, C., Schwartz, J. E., Wingard, D. L., & Criqui, M. H. (1993). Does childhood personality predict longevity? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 176-185.

Fry Jr., W. F. (1992). The physiologic effects of humor, mirth, and laughter. Journal of the American Medical Association, 267(13), 1857-1858.

Greengross, G., & Martin, R. A. (2018). Health among comedy performers: Susceptibility to contagious diseases among improvisational artists. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research, 31(3), 491-505.

Hertenstein, M. J., Hansel, C. A., Butts, A. M., & Hile, S. N. (2009). Smile intensity in photographs predicts divorce later in life. Motivation and Emotion, 33(2), 99-105. 10.1007/s11031-009-9124-6

Kerkkanen, P., Kuiper, N. A., & Martin, R. A. (2004). Sense of humor, physical health, and well-being at work: A three-year longitudinal study of Finnish police officers. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research, 17(1), 21-35.

Kimata, H. (2004a). Differential effects of laughter on allergen-specific immunoglobulin and neurotrophin levels in tears. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3), 901-908.

Kimata, H. (2004b). Laughter counteracts enhancement of plasma neurotrophin levels and allergic skin wheal responses by mobile phone—mediated stress. Behavioral Medicine, 29(4), 149-154.

Martin, R. A. (2001). Humor, Laughter, and Physical Health: Methodological issues and Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(4), 504-519.

Martin, R. A. (2008). Humor and health. In V. Raskin (Ed.), The primer of humor research (pp. 479-522). Mouton de Gruyter.

Martin, R. A., & Ford, T. (2018). The psychology of humor: An integrative approach (Second ed.). Academic press.

Romundstad, S., Svebak, S., Holen, A., & Holmen, J. (2016). A 15-year follow-up study of sense of humor and causes of mortality: the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 78(3), 345-353.

Rotton, J. (1992). Trait humor and longevity: Do comics have the last laugh? Health Psychology, 11(4), 262-266.

Stewart, S., & Thompson, D. R. (2015). Does comedy kill? A retrospective, longitudinal cohort, nested case–control study of humour and longevity in 53 British comedians. International Journal of Cardiology, 180, 258-261.

Stewart, S., Wiley, J. F., McDermott, C. J., & Thompson, D. R. (2016). Is the last "man" standing in comedy the least funny? A retrospective cohort study of elite stand-up comedians versus other entertainers. International Journal of Cardiology, 220, 789-793.

Svebak, S., Kristoffersen, B., & Aasarød, K. (2006). Sense of humor and survival among a county cohort of patients with end-stage renal failure: a two-year prospective study. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 36(3), 269-281.

We'll Laugh for Very Joy. (1925, Jan 26). Herald and Review.

Zweyer, K., Velker, B., & Ruch, W. (2004). Do cheerfulness, exhilaration, and humor production moderate pain tolerance? A FACS study. HUMOR: International Journal of Humor Research., 17(1/2), 85-120.

SOURCE:

https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/cracking-joke(accessed 31.1.25)