Archive for the ‘Self Presentation’ Category
Here are a few articles that did not act as a catalyst to stimulate an entire post but that tweaked our fancy enough that we wanted to share them with you. Think of them as “rescue items” if you have social anxiety and want to seem scintillating….or something like that.
So have you seen this in the last second?
Here’s an interesting memory study where the researchers found that if participants didn’t know they were going to be tested on things they’d seen repeatedly, they would have no idea when asked to identify if they’d seen a specific item before. Specifically, they asked participants to do a simple memory test to replicate memory for different kinds of information (e.g., numbers. letters or colors). For example, participants would be shown four characters on a screen that were arranged in a square. They would be asked to report which corner the letter was in (when the other characters were either numbers or colors). The researchers repeated this task many, many times and the participants rarely made mistakes. But then (because researchers cannot leave well enough alone) the researchers asked the participants to respond to an unexpected question. Specifically, the participants were asked which of the four letters appearing on their computer screen had appeared on the previous screen. Only 25% responded correctly (which is random chance of accuracy). The question was asked again after the following task but this time it wasn’t a surprise and participants gave correct answers between 65% and 95% of the time. The researchers call this effect “attribute amnesia” and say it happens when you use a piece of information to perform a task but are then unable to report what that information was as little as a single second later.
Remember that post on uninterrupted eye contact causing hallucinations?
We wrote about it in one of these ‘tidbit’ posts back in 2015 and even included a very awkward video from a Steve Martin/Tina Fey movie. This time researchers were looking for the optimal length of uninterrupted eye contact that would be experienced positively by the most people. Think of this as a potential answer to the question witnesses often have about how long to maintain eye contact with individual jurors or just use this as a guide for comfortable eye contact with strangers at Starbucks. On average, the close to 500 participants were most comfortable with eye contact that lasted slightly over three seconds. The majority preferred a duration of eye contact between two and five seconds and no one liked eye contact of less than a second or longer than nine seconds. We conclude that less than a second is too furtive, and longer than 9 seconds is intolerably intrusive. One problem with the study was that it used filmed clips rather than actual live interactions but it is an approximate guide to “normal” eye contact versus “creepy” eye contact.
Oh no! There may be a problem with all those fMRI studies!!!
A new article published in the journal PNAS tells us there is a fMRI software error that could result in the invalidation of 15 years (and more than 40,000 papers) of fMRI research. We know you are likely thinking of the article on that poor dead salmon who still showed brain activity. This article was cited all over the internet in July of 2016 as proof that all the work done on fMRI machines was likely flawed. Even though the bug was corrected in 2015, it was undetected for more than a decade and the researchers thought perhaps every study should be replicated to ensure accuracy in the literature upon which we rely. The fMRI software error and the resulting shambles of the literature was seen as a devastating bombshell with headlines like this one from Forbes suggesting “tens of thousands of fMRI brain studies may be flawed”. Fortunately, hysteria like this is likely why the Neuroskeptic was born and certainly why the Neuroskeptic blog makes such a contribution to knowledge in this field. Is this software glitch really serious? Yes, says the Neuroskeptic. It is a serious problem but it is not invalidating years of fMRI research. In fact, in an update posted to Neuroskeptic blog on July 15, 2016, the author of the paper in PNAS had requested some corrections to the publication to avoid these sensationalist headlines but PNAS refused so he put the updates onto another accessible site. Visit the Neuroskeptic’s excellent blog to read a common-sense and rational explanation of what the fMRI software bug really means and how those familiar with the fMRI work have known about this for some time now.
Yes, Virginia—women are still harassed for choosing STEM careers even though it is 2016
You’ve likely heard the lament that there are too few women in STEM careers and that we need to fix the problem. The Atlantic has published a very well-done article on how women are pushed out of STEM careers and that as many as 2 out of 3 women science professors reported being sexually harassed. And those are just the ones who made it through to graduation. The stories of those still in training having photos taken of their breasts, being harassed at conferences, or being hand-fed ice cream by male professors are disturbing. There is also “pregnancy harassment” and stories of PIs (principal investigators on grants who are typically faculty members) insisting pregnant postdocs return to the lab weeks after giving birth and then harassing the postdoc for having “baby brain” and questioning their experimental results. It is well worth your time to read.
Chen H, & Wyble B (2015). Amnesia for object attributes: failure to report attended information that had just reached conscious awareness. Psychological Science, 26 (2), 203-10 PMID: 25564523
Binetti, N., Harrison, C., Coutrot, A., Johnston, A., & Mareschal, I. (2016). Pupil dilation as an index of preferred mutual gaze duration Royal Society Open Science, 3 (7) DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160086
Typical looking faces are not the most attractive in the view of others but they are the most trustworthy. This reminds us of the post we wrote a while back about how to appear intelligent, trustworthy and attractive when you need corrective lenses (i.e., wear rimless glasses).
In this case, (published in the journal Psychological Science) the researchers made a “digital average” of twelve attractive female faces. If you don’t know what a digital average is—the researchers used computers to combine the faces of twelve different women and came up with an “average” of their faces. (As an example, the photo illustrating this post is a digital average of male faces.) Participants in the current research (undergraduate females from universities in Israel) were asked to rate the (eleven) face “morphs” they were shown on both trustworthiness and attractiveness.
As the face “morphed” closer to the digital average—it was more likely to be judged as trustworthy.
Conversely, the closer the face was to the original ‘attractive’ face, the more attractive it was judged.
The researchers did two additional studies with the same results. The research participants saw the typical (i.e., “digitally averaged”) faces as more trustworthy and the original “attractive female faces” as more attractive. The researchers suggest what this means is that we are more familiar with “typical faces” and thus are more comfortable and likely to find those faces “trustworthy”. The researchers turn an old phrase around into “what is typical is good” when it comes to trustworthiness.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this is good news for most people, who we imagine are—on average— average. We have spent our lives learning that “what is beautiful is good” so it is indeed good news to think that if your face is more typical than beautiful, you appear more trustworthy to others. Paradoxically, pretty people in this case might be working under a disadvantage.
And remember—if you wear rimless glasses, you appear both attractive and trustworthy (not to mention intelligent).
Sofer C, Dotsch R, Wigboldus DH, & Todorov A (2015). What is typical is good: the influence of face typicality on perceived trustworthiness. Psychological Science, 26 (1), 39-47 PMID: 25512052
Sometimes these tidbit posts come around more often than usual—typically it happens when we’ve read a lot that is just not suited for an entire blog post but it made us laugh out loud or peaked our curiosity. Here for you are the last few things that made us look again or laugh uncomfortably.
Millennials are doing job search duties for their parents too
We hear so much bad press on the Millennials but here’s a really sweet article that shows how Millennials are helping out their parents too. The Atlantic has an article on what they describe as “employed and financially independent Millennials who are instead helping their parents find a job”. They are not only teaching their parents the basics of finding a job in 2016 but also using their social media skills and networking skills to find out who might be hiring in their parent’s professional areas of interest. It’s an uplifting and positive take on a generation currently maligned as freeloaders—plus there are some good resources embedded in the article as Millennials talk about what they have done to help Mom or Dad.
Political extremists are less susceptible to the anchoring bias
So here’s a point for the political extremist. If you are a regular reader here you know we tend to de-select the political extremist as just too unpredictable to serve as a juror on most cases. Often, the extremist is characterized as unthinking and knee-jerk in decision-making with stereotypes and biases guiding their thinking. However, new research tells us that political extremists sometimes think carefully about their decisions and are quite confident in their judgments. Here’s the abstract for the article, a blog post by the first author, and a Huffington Post writeup. The complete reference is at the end of this post. It’s an interesting article but we still won’t be choosing them to sit on the vast majority of juries.
Those Joe Jamail deposition tapes are so 1990
It’s been years since we first saw the “Texas style” depositions by Joe Jamail on YouTube. If you have somehow missed watching this epic video, you owe it to yourself to give it a look. You’ll realize just how long it’s been when you see these courtroom transcripts posted by Keith Lee over on Associate’s Mind blog. It’s enough to make one wonder how court reporters maintain their decorum and it certainly says something about how times change. Both of the authors of this fine blog have testified many times as expert witnesses. And one memory stands out prominently in which two lawyers nearly began brawling in the middle of the deposition. It was a good time to have a psychologist and dispute resolution specialist in the room!
What’s the best way to deliver bad news?
When companies downsize (or “right-size”) there are always myriad recommendations on the best way to deliver bad news to those who lose their jobs due to layoffs. Now, new research tells us it isn’t so much what is said when you notify an employee about layoffs as how it is said. Researchers publishing in the Journal of Applied Psychology tell us that when employees are given the information in a way that seems fair to them—their reactions are much less negative. According to them, “fairness” includes process transparency and treating employees with respect. You can read a summary of this article over at Science Daily. and we found a full-text source here.
Brandt MJ, Evans AM, & Crawford JT (2015). The unthinking or confident extremist? Political extremists are more likely than moderates to reject experimenter-generated anchors. Psychological Science, 26 (2), 189-202 PMID: 25512050
It’s time for another installment of strange tidbits we’ve gathered as we have read potential articles for blog posts. This week we have information on why you would stick something icky and repulsive into your mouth, online anonymity, bias against homosexuals, and what horrible things can happen should you choose to ‘unfriend’ that person on Facebook who really annoys you.
Disgusting and repulsive is what that is—tell me more!
The popularity of television shows like Fear Factor tells us that we humans are drawn to disgusting and repulsive things. Some researchers (Hsee and Ruan cited below) think our curiosity drives us to risk negative outcomes (much like Pandora). There is a thorough write-up on this article over at Scientific American that is worth your time to review—although it is likely a good idea to not eat while doing so.
You are likely not as anonymous online as you think
Now this is sort of scary. Many of us want to be anonymous online as we go about our daily business. But a new research study says they can identify who you are just by the way you browse the internet. Apparently, each of us creates a “unique digital behavioral signature” and “they” can know way too much about you based on how you wield that electronic mouse or touchpad. Within a half hour of monitoring you, the researchers say they can measure personality characteristics like “openness to new experiences, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism”. That’s pretty scary. The researchers appear to be very excited about this and appear to long to sell their strategies to online marketers. [I think these researchers should be denied tenure just on principle.]
How do we feel now about lesbian women and gay men?
There has been a cultural shift underway in the US in attitudes toward homosexuals. Some have wondered if there really is a change underway or if people just feel pressured to express more support for gay men and lesbian women. Now there is research published in a new open access journal called Collabra that says this societal change really has occurred. A team of researchers found that implicit or unconscious bias against lesbians and gays was down 13% in 2013 when compared to 2006. Nearly all demographic groups showed decreases in bias against homosexuals over that 7 year period which suggests the change is not just politically correct but actually real.
You may want to consider alternatives to “unfriending” on Facebook once you read this
Imagine you live in a “sleepy mountain town” with your young spouse and infant child. Then imagine you have been murdered (although your child survived) and no one can figure out who did it because, “everyone” liked you. You don’t really have to imagine since you can read the story of what happened to a young couple after they ‘unfriended’ a woman on Facebook. It’s a sadly bizarre tale of catfishing and loneliness and perhaps some psychopathy. Here’s a quote from the assistant district attorney’s opening statement to the jury:
“This is going to be the stupidest thing you’ve ever heard. This is going to be the craziest thing you’ve ever heard. There is nothing in your lives or background that has prepared you to understand the Potter family.”
And to that we say, “Amen”. And we would like also to mention you can ‘unfollow’ rather than ‘unfriend’ to get them out of your timeline but not incite homicidal rage.
Hsee CK, & Ruan B (2016). The Pandora Effect: The Power and Peril of Curiosity. Psychological Science, 27 (5), 659-66 PMID: 27000178
Here is some new research that says while we cannot identify liars through our intuition — there are ways we can increase our ability to identify liars. Most of you know that successful lie detection is not something at which the majority of us are skilled. New research suggests a way to improve deception detection (which we’ve blogged about frequently) and it makes intuitive sense.
The researcher, Chris Street, says our ability to detect deception is poor because we are trying to juggle multiple cues we believe indicate deception. Our focus is so scattered that we are not usually successful. Instead, we should perhaps focus on a single cue—such as whether or not the person is obviously thinking hard—as a sign of deception. This is not a matter of improving our access to intuition or our “implicit knowledge” that someone is lying as described in past research. These researchers describe it this way:
“Indirect lie detection does not access implicit knowledge, but simply focuses the perceiver on more useful cues.”
It is not that deep down inside we have the ability to intuit lies if we would just free our intuition—it is simply that we’ve been trying to process too many different small signs (or cues) of deception and diluting our ability to zero in on behaviors associated with deception. The researchers call this an indirect lie detection approach.
In an indirect lie detection approach, you don’t look for signs of deception. Instead you look for behaviors known to be associated with lying. For example, the researchers point to “appears to be thinking hard” or “appears tense” as two behaviors associated with lying. To practice indirect lie detection then, you focus on a “single diagnostic cue” such as “thinking hard” as you appraise a speaker for either accuracy or deception.
In multiple studies, the authors found that when observers focused on the single deception clue of “thinking hard”, their accuracy in deception detection increased.
The researchers say that whether there truly is an “implicit awareness” of deception should be left for others to explore. Instead, we can focus on concrete and behavioral indicators and have improved accuracy. Their findings lead them to suggest that researchers focus on the single most important diagnostic cue and to simply ignore those that are less powerful or not at all indicative of deception. According to the researchers, attempting to apply multiple “signs of deception” as you listen to someone will result in lower levels of accuracy than will watching for one specific diagnostic cue.
We have talked about similar recommendations here before, and think the best way to improve your accuracy is to watch a single strong indicator of whatever behavior you are trying to assess (whether lies or some other behavior) in order to avoid confusion while trying to juggle multiple (and sometimes conflicting) cues to the behavior you are assessing.
Street CN, & Richardson DC (2015). The focal account: Indirect lie detection need not access unconscious, implicit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 21 (4), 342-55 PMID: 26301728