Friday, 10 November 2017

We’re surprisingly unaware of when our own beliefs change




If you read an article about a controversial issue, do you think you’d realise if it had changed your beliefs? No one knows your own mind like you do – it seems obvious that you would know if your beliefs had shifted. And yet a new paper in The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology suggests that we actually have very poor “metacognitive awareness” of our own belief change, meaning that we will tend to underestimate how much we’ve been swayed by a convincing article.

The researchers Michael Wolfe and Todd Williams at Grand Valley State University said their findings could have implications for the public communication of science. “People may be less willing to meaningfully consider belief inconsistent material if they feel that their beliefs are unlikely to change as a consequence,” they wrote.



The researchers recruited over two hundred undergrads across two studies and focused on their beliefs about whether the spanking/smacking of kids is an effective form of discipline. The researchers chose this topic deliberately in the hope the students would be mostly unaware of the relevant research literature, and that they would express a varied range of relatively uncommitted initial beliefs.

The students reported their initial beliefs about whether spanking is an effective way to discipline a child on a scale from “1” completely disbelieve to “9” completely believe. Several weeks later they were given one of two research-based texts to read: each was several pages long and either presented the arguments and data in favour of spanking or against spanking. After this, the students answered some questions to test their comprehension and memory of the text (these measures varied across the two studies). Then the students again scored their belief in whether spanking is effective or not (using the same 9-point scale as before). Finally, the researchers asked them to recall what their belief had been at the start of the study.

The students’ belief about spanking changed when they read a text that argued against their own initial position. Crucially, their memory of their initial belief was shifted in the direction of their new belief – in fact, their memory was closer to their current belief than their original belief. The more their belief had changed, the larger this memory bias tended to be, suggesting the students were relying on their current belief to deduce their initial belief. The memory bias was unrelated to the measures of how well they’d understood or recalled the text, suggesting these factors didn’t play a role in memory of initial belief or awareness of belief change.

One big caveat is obviously that this research was about changes to mostly moderate beliefs – it’s likely the findings would be different in the context of changes to extreme or deeply held beliefs (this would be tricky to study because it will be more difficult to change these kind of beliefs). However, our beliefs on most topics are in the moderate range, and as we go about our daily lives reading informative material, these intriguing findings suggest we are mostly ignorant of how what we just read has updated and altered our own position.


SOURCE:

Monday, 6 November 2017

Ενα διαφορετικό βίντεο κατά του μπούλινγκ


Πώς θα αντιδρούσατε αν βλέπατε μπροστά σας ένα περιστατικό μπούλινγκ κατά νεαρού από συνομηλίκους του; Ενα γνωστό μεγαθήριο «fast food» σκέφτηκε να δημιουργήσει ένα τέτοιο σκηνικό σε ένα κατάστημά του προκειμένου να δει με ποιόν τρόπο θα αντιδρούσαν οι υπόλοιποι πελάτες. Μάλιστα, σε όποιον πελάτη έμενε άπραγος προσέφερε ένα μπέργκερ χτυπημένο και διαλυμένο (λέγοντας τους ότι και αυτό έχει δεχτεί μπούλινγκ). Υπήρχαν φυσικά και κάποιοι που αντέδρασαν. Η συνέχεια στο βίντεο…

http://www.protagon.gr/video/ena-diaforetiko-vinteo-kata-tou-boulingk

Control and Fear: What Mass Killings and Domestic Violence Have in Common



In February, Cedric Ford shot 17 people at his Kansas workplace, killing three, only 90 minutes after being served with a restraining order sought by his ex-girlfriend, who said he had abused her. And Man Haron Monis, who holed up with hostages for 17 hours in a cafe in Sydney, Australia, in 2014, an episode that left two people dead and four wounded, had terrorized his ex-wife. He had threatened to harm her if she left him, and was eventually charged with organizing her murder.

When Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group, analyzed F.B.I. data on mass shootings from 2009 to 2015, it found that 57 percent of the cases included a spouse, former spouse or other family member among the victims — and that 16 percent of the attackers had previously been charged with domestic violence.

Social scientists have not settled on an explanation for this correlation, but their research reveals striking parallels between the factors that drive the two phenomena.

There are, of course, a tangle of factors behind every murder, especially terrorism inspired by foreign groups. But research on domestic violence hints at a question that often arises from seemingly inexplicable events like Mr. Mateen’s massacre of 49 people at an Orlando nightclub — what drives individuals to commit such mass attacks? — and sheds light on the psychology of violence.
‘Intimate Terrorism’

Domestic violence often follows a pattern in which an abuser seeks to control every aspect of a victim’s life. The scope and intent of this are hinted at in one name experts use for it: “intimate terrorism.”

“The perpetrator is engaging in a general pattern of control over the victim — her finances, her social contacts, the clothes she wears,” said Deborah Epstein, who runs Georgetown University Law Center’s domestic violence clinic. Violence is the perpetrator’s means of enforcing that control — and of punishing any attempts to break it.

Mr. Mateen’s brief marriage to Sitora Yusufiy seems to fit this model. She has said that he forced her to hand over her paychecks to him, forbade her to leave the house except to go to work, and prevented her from contacting her parents. Even small perceived infractions were met with a violent response.

“He would just come home and start beating me up because the laundry wasn’t finished or something like that,” Ms. Yusufiy told The Washington Post.Photo

Sitora Yusufiy, the ex-wife of the gunman in the nightclub massacre in Orlando, Fla., and her fiancé, Marcio Dias, at their home outside Boulder, Colo., on Sunday. CreditAutumn Parry/Daily Camera, via Associated Press

Take this dynamic of coercive violence to its most horrible extreme, and it looks an awful lot like how the Islamic State treats women in its self-proclaimed caliphate. As my Times colleague Rukmini Callimachi has reported, the group has created a vast infrastructure of rape and slavery in which women are held captive and bought and sold by its fighters. It is intimate violence on an industrial scale.

Domestic violence, experts say, is also often a way for male abusers to impose their view of “traditional” gender roles. Ms. Epstein said such “traditions” in the United States were rooted in the idea of men having control over women.

“That’s our culture: It’s all about men controlling women in their lives,” she said. “Intimate terrorism stems from that desire to control.”

This bears striking similarities to how the Islamic State presents its treatment of women as a recruiting tool, promising young men abroad — particularly in Europe — that its caliphate will allow them to restore “traditional” gender norms of male dominance. This dominance is exercised in part through violence including systematic rape and the threat of rape. The group often presents this violence as a means to measure and protect men’s honor.

It seems natural, then, that the Islamic State might appeal to men who desire that sort of control over the women in their lives, separate from any ideological draw — the kind of men who might have domestic violence in their past.

Nimmi Gowrinathan, a visiting professor at the City College of New York who studies women’s roles in insurgent and terrorist conflicts, said that restrictive norms about gender and sexuality could be a “pull” factor for terrorist organizations — but that people who are drawn to them are also often “pushed” by their own pre-existing attitudes or desires.
Personal and Global Grievances

Terrorist attacks and mass shootings garner attention and frighten the public much more than episodes of domestic violence. But domestic violence has a much higher death toll in the United States.



According to the Violence Policy Center, 895 women in the United States were murdered by their current or former intimate partners in 2013 (and this does not include those killed amid mass shootings). That single-year tally is more than nine times the 92 people the New American Foundation has counted as killed in jihadist attacks on American soil in the past decade.

But there are striking parallels between the intiate terrorism of domestic violence and the mass terrorism perpetrated by lone-wolf attackers like Mr. Mateen seems to have been. Both, at their most basic level, are attempts to provoke fear and assert control.

Domestic violence, experts say, often occurs when an abuser concludes that violence is the best tool to solve his or her grievances. That might mean a husband who perceives his wife’s failure to do the laundry as a challenge to his rightful authority, leading him to try to reimpose his will through violence.

Clark McCauley, a professor at Bryn Mawr College who studies the psychology of mass violence and terrorism, said he was not aware of research finding a causal relationship between domestic violence and terrorism. But he has found that a characteristic common to mass killers is a sense of grievance: a belief that someone, somewhere, had wronged them in a way that merited a violent response.Photo

Omar Mateen, who fatally shot dozens of people at an Orlando nightclub early Sunday.Creditvia Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

That grievance could be personal, or it could be political — a sense that the perpetrator needed to act in the name of a larger group.

Paul Gill, a senior lecturer at University College London who studies the behavior of lone-actor terrorists, said that violence was, in a sense, a learned psychological skill: “Having a history of violence might help neutralize the natural barriers to committing violence.”

From that perspective, domestic violence can be seen as a psychological training ground for someone like Mr. Mateen to commit a mass attack.
Gender Norms, Gender Panic

A domestic abuser’s desire to impose, by force, supposed traditional gender roles also sometimes includes sexuality. Such abusers, experts say, may see homosexuality as a threat to their masculinity.

“There is an idea that what it means to be masculine is to be vigilant of your sexuality, and hypervigilant towards keeping anyone from perceiving you as gay,” said Gillian Chadwick, a fellow at Georgetown University Law Center.

Intimate terrorism, in that sense, rests on a broader spectrum of violence meant to preserve the traditional dominance of heterosexual men, and coerce those who are perceived as threatening that order. That spectrum, at the extreme end, includes mass shootings.

This connection makes it somewhat easier to understand an apparent contradiction: that Mr. Mateen targeted a gay nightclub and that his father and ex-wife have said he had a history of homophobic remarks, but that he also had been seen visiting Pulse, the gay nightclub he targeted, and, according to some news reports, used a gay dating app.

Could Mr. Mateen have been trying to use violence to reimpose rules about gender and sexuality that he himself was troubled about violating? If so, he would not be the first.

Ms. Chadwick said there was an entire category of legal argument, called “gay panic” and “trans panic” claims, in which defendants say that they turned to violence because they were so upset about being perceived as gay, or about discovering they were attracted to a transgender person.

Ms. Gowrinathan, who studies gender and terrorism, warned against making assumptions based on Mr. Mateen’s having been a Muslim raised by Afghan immigrants to the United States, saying that domestic violence and homophobia are prevalent across cultures.

“He is the outcome of the United States’ political culture, not the Islamic State’s,” she said.

Ms. Epstein of Georgetown agreed. “People in the U.S. throw acid in the faces of their wives who have betrayed them,” she said. “Anything you could find overseas happens here, too.”

SOURCE:

Έρευνα που υποστηρίζει ότι όσοι αργούν είναι αισιόδοξοι, επιτυχημένοι και πιο υγιείς






Όσοι αργοπορούν συστηματικά μπορεί να αντιμετωπίζουν πρόβλημα λόγω της καθυστέρησης, αλλά όπως έδειξαν τα αποτελέσματα έρευνας, έχουν εξελιγμένο τρόπο σκέψης, είναι αισιόδοξοι, επιτυχημένοι και ζουν περισσότερο.
Για την αργοπορία συνήθως ευθύνεται ο λάθος υπολογισμός του χρόνου, καθώς οι «αργοπορημένοι» πιστεύουν ότι προλαβαίνουν να πραγματοποιήσουν όλες τις υποχρεώσεις τους μέσα σε ελάχιστο χρονικό διάστημα.
Η έρευνα δείχνει, ότι υπολογίζουν λάθος γιατί είναι υπερβολικά αισιόδοξοι.
Η θετική τους σκέψη υπερισχύει του ρεαλισμού τους, όμως εκείνοι δεν απογοητεύονται και συνεχίζουν να βλέπουν από τη θετική σκοπιά.
Όμως σχεδόν πάντα καταφέρνουν να τακτοποιούν όλες τις υποθέσεις τους.Η θετική τους σκέψη υπερισχύει του ρεαλισμού τους, όμως εκείνοι δεν απογοητεύονται και συνεχίζουν να βλέπουν από τη θετική σκοπιά.

Για τις ανάγκες της έρευνας, ζητήθηκε από υπαλλήλους που αργοπορούν και από υπαλλήλους που είναι συνεπείς να προωθήσουν προϊόντα.
Ως αποτέλεσμα, εκείνοι που αργοπορούσαν κατάφεραν να βγάλουν κατά 88% μεγαλύτερο κέρδος, συγκριτικά με τους συνεπείς.
Οι πελάτες όταν ρωτήθηκαν σχετικά με την επιλογή τους, απάντησαν ότι προτίμησαν να αγοράσουν από τους συγκεκριμένους υπαλλήλους γιατί ήταν πιο ενθουσιώδεις, φιλικοί και τους ενέπνευσαν αισιοδοξία.
Συνήθως όσοι αργοπορούν αντιμετωπίζονται ως απείθαρχοι και ανοργάνωτοι, όμως οι επιστήμονες υποστηρίζουν ότι αυτά τα χαρακτηριστικά δεν ανταποκρίνονται στην προσωπικότητά τους.
Αντίθετα, οι επιστήμονες εξηγούν ότι είναι ενθουσιώδεις και πνευματώδεις, που τα χαρακτηριστικά τους παρερμηνεύονται.Η αντίληψή τους για το χρόνο δεν ανταποκρίνεται στην πραγματικότητα.Πιστεύουν ότι προλαβαίνουν να πραγματοποιήσουν όλες τις υποχρεώσεις τους μέσα σε ελάχιστο χρονικό διάστημα.

Έρευνα από το πανεπιστήμιο του Σαν Ντιέγκο, προσπάθησε να αναλύσει τη σχέση των ανθρώπων με το χρόνο.
Για να κατανοήσουν οι επιστήμονες την αντίληψη των ατόμων, μετά από αναμονή ενός λεπτού, τους ζήτησαν να μαντέψουν πόσος χρόνος είχε περάσει.
Η πρώτη κατηγορία έπεσε πολύ κοντά, μαντεύοντας κατά μέσο όρο 58 δευτερόλεπτα.
Η δεύτερη κατηγορία υπολόγισε περισσότερα από 77 δευτερόλεπτα.
Στη δεύτερη κατηγορία, τα άτομα που συμμετείχαν ασχολούνταν με πιο δημιουργικά επαγγέλματα και είχαν τάση προς συστηματική αργοπορία.
Επίσης, δεν δυσανασχετούν όταν κάποιος τους «στήσει» και δεν καταλαβαίνουν την δυσαρέσκεια των υπολοίπων στη συστηματική τους αργοπορία.
Γιατί και πάλι η αντίληψή τους για το χρόνο δεν ανταποκρίνεται στην πραγματικότητα.
Όταν αργούν περισσότερο από 20 λεπτά, πιστεύουν ότι καθυστέρησαν μόνο για 5.
Καρδιολόγοι υποστηρίζουν, ότι όσοι καθυστερούν έχουν μειωμένες πιθανότητες να αντιμετωπίσουν καρδιαγγειακά νοσήματα, καθώς η αισιοδοξία τους, τους απαλλάσσει από το έντονο στρες.
Η αργοπορία όταν είναι μικρή συγχωρείται, αρκεί να μην εΊναι επαναλαμβανόμενη γιατί γίνεται κουραστική, παρά την πολυπλοκότητα του χαρακτήρα των «αργοπορημένων».

ΠΗΓΗ:

Monday, 30 October 2017

Children of today are better at delaying gratification than previous generations




If you believed the copious alarmist commentary in the newspapers, you’d fear for the future of our species. Today’s children, we’re told, are more hyperactive and technology addicted than ever before. They’ve lost any ability to sit still, instead craving constant stimulation from digital devices and exhausted parents.

What might this mean for their performance on the most famous psychological measure of childhood self-control, Walter Mischel’s Marshmallow Test? Surely, kids of today will struggle far more than previous generations to resist the lure of one marshmallow (or other treat) now for the promise of two in ten minutes or so, as the task requires? In a new survey, the majority of child development experts certainly believed so.

Yet based on his analysis of 50 years worth of performance data on the Marshmallow Test – released as a preprint at the Open Science Framework – John Protzko at the University of California, Santa Barbara, concludes that in fact children of today are capable of more self-restraint than previous generations, with their ability to delay gratification having increased by about a minute per decade over the last 50 years.



Protzko combined the results from every published and unpublished use of the Marshmallow Test that he could find, starting with Mischel’s seminal work first published in 1968 and including 4 studies in the 1970s, 3 in the 1990s, 6 in the 2000s, and 16 in our current decade, all involving children aged ten or younger. Protzko speculates that the gap in the 1980s is due to the introduction at that time of a rival test of self-regulation which is quicker to administer – the so-called gift-delay task.

Before crunching the numbers, Protzko polled 260 members of the Cognitive Development Society Listserv about how they thought the results would come out. Just over 50 per cent predicted that Protzko would find children’s powers of self-restraint would be lower today than the in past; 20 per cent predicted no change over time; and just 16 per cent believed that children today would outperform the children of the past (the others said there wouldn’t be enough data to answer the question).

Protzko found a statistically significant linear trend – children’s ability to resist immediate temptation and wait for a greater reward seems to have increased over the decades (this remained true when removing two study outliers, marked as black circles in the graph above). The increase in delay of gratification ability is similar in size to the known increase in average IQ seen over the same timescale, possibly reflecting shared mechanisms, though this is speculation at this stage. Meanwhile, variation in Marshmallow Test performance has stayed the same over the decades, which means that average improvement has been seen across the spread of ability, not just among those children who are more self-restrained.

How could the experts have got it so wrong? Protzko’s suggests they are prone to same bias as the rest of us, what he calls the “kids these days” phenomenon: “people’s memories for their own and others’ abilities in childhood are unduly influenced by their current abilities. While it is easy to look at kids these days and deride their inability to control themselves and decry the downfall of civilisation, it is much harder to accurately recall our own selves as children.”

Does the apparent improvement in children’s powers of self-control bode well for the future, for instance in terms of reduced criminality and addiction? Protzko thinks not, speculating that it is probably one’s ability relative to others, rather than one’s absolute ability, that is relevant to future behaviour – the lowest performers will remain at risk, he suggests. “These [unhealthy and dangerous] behaviours have been with humans for thousands of years, and will be with us for thousands more,” he predicts.

The causes and consequences of the apparent increase in children’s powers of self-restraint over time remain to be uncovered by future research. For now, Protzko says the data show that “Contrary to historical and present complaints, kids these days appear to be better than we were. A supposed modern culture of instant gratification has not stemmed the march of improvement.”

SOURCE: