Archive for March, 2009

Experiences make us happier than things

Monday, March 30th, 2009

Here’s a new twist on the ‘money doesn’t make you happy’ senario from Startribune.com. It would certainly stand to reason that experiences have the possibility to make us happier, simply because memories last longer than material things generally – but do they need to be ‘good’ experiences? I suppose they do …

Experiences make us happier than things By SHARI ROAN, Los Angeles Times Last update: March 29, 2009 – 12:59 PM

Money is an emotional issue, especially during economic hard times. Social scientists have always warned that once a person’s basic needs are met, money doesn’t buy happiness. But if you’re wondering, or maybe even arguing over, what to do with any precious discretionary income these days, a new study suggests how to get the biggest emotional bang for your buck.

Ryan Howell, an assistant professor of psychology at San Francisco State University, found that buying experiences — such as vacations, going to the theater or renting a sailboat — gave people more happiness than buying material things.

The study, of 154 people ages 19 to 50, showed that experiences increase happiness because they are often social in nature. In addition, however, experiences tend to make people feel more alive.

“People report a sense of feeling invigorated or inspired,” Howell said.

Experiences might also yield more happiness because people are left with positive memories, a sort of return on their investment.

“It’s not that material things don’t bring any happiness. It’s just that they don’t bring as much,” Howell said. “You’re happy with a new television set. But you’re thrilled with a vacation.”

The study might yield some lessons for Americans in despair over the recession. “For whatever you can afford, you’ll maximize your happiness, and the happiness of others around you, if you spend it on a life experience,” he said.

It doesn’t matter how much money you spend, either.

“Whether you spent a little or a lot on the life experience, you still have the same level of happiness,” he said.

The study was presented recently at an annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology and will be published this year in the Journal of Positive Psychology.

Video Games Can Encourage Positive Behavior, Too

Saturday, March 28th, 2009

With so much bad press for video games and the people who partake in them, this article  from Miller-McCune makes a refreshing change

 By: Tom Jacobs  |  March 27, 2009  |  01:07 PM (PDT)  |  

 

If violent video games encourage violent behavior, as a series of studies suggests, do prosocial games — those that reward helpful behavior — inspire players to act in more constructive, cooperative ways? A newly published paper, featuring studies of three different age groups in three different countries, suggests the answer is yes.

“Video games are not inherently good or bad,” concludes the team of 12 researchers led by psychologist Douglas Gentile of Iowa State University. Their findings suggest this popular form of entertainment “can have both positive and negative effects.”

The paper, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, begins with a survey of secondary school students in Singapore (adolescents in the equivalent of seventh or eighth grade). They listed their favorite games, the number of hours they spend playing them each week and how often the games involve a) helping others, or b) hurting or killing others.

They were then asked a series of questions to measure their emotional awareness and empathy for others. After controlling for several variables, “prosocial game exposure was positively related to prosocial behavior,” the researchers report.

The second survey was of fifth-, eighth- and eleventh-grade students in Japan. They were asked how often in the past month they had played games in which characters help troubled people, or games in which friendship or a positive parent-child relationship was featured.

Finally, the youngsters were asked how often in the previous month they had acted in one of four specific helpful ways (such as “I helped a person who was in trouble”). The researchers discovered a strong relationship between playing prosocial games and self-reported prosocial behavior.

For the third study, the researchers conducted an experiment using 161 American college students, who were randomly assigned to play specific parts of one of six video games. Two of the games were violent (Ty2 and Crash Trinsanity), two were neutral (Pure Pinball and Super Monkey Ball Deluxe), and two were deemed prosocial: Chibi Robo, in which the goal is to make your family happy by cleaning up and helping out with the chores; and Super Mario Sunshine, in which players gain points by cleaning up a polluted island.

After playing one of the games for 20 minutes, participants were asked to assign a partner 11 puzzles to complete. They were told that if their partners completed 10 of the puzzles within 10 minutes, the partner would win a $10 gift certificate. They could choose puzzles from one of three difficulty levels, depending upon whether they were disposed to help their partner win the prize, or to place difficulties in his or her path.

The researchers found that “participants who played a prosocial game helped their partners significantly more than did either those who had played a violent game, or those who had played a neutral game.” Furthermore, “the violent gamers hurt their partners significantly more than did either those who had played a prosocial game or those who had played a neutral game.”

Taken together, the three studies found that “prosocial game play was significantly positively related to all four measured prosocial behaviors and traits” — helping behavior, cooperation and sharing, empathy and emotional awareness. These findings complement a 2008 study from Britain that found listening to songs with prosocial lyrics encourages charitable behavior.

According to Gentile and his colleagues, these results “make it clear how critical it is to separate amount of play from the content of play.” In other words, video game playing per se isn’t the issue: Rather, the important factor is the underlying messages contained in specific games.

“Content matters,” they conclude, “and games are excellent teachers.”

Visual learners convert words to pictures in the brain and vice versa

Friday, March 27th, 2009
This interesting article published in Science Centric on 26 March 2009 demonstrates why, as an NLP Learning Coach, I realise how important it is for us to learn in our prefered style. If a visual person only ever hears the voice of their teacher telling them the things they need to know, the visual person has to convert that teaching into visual images before they can fully understand it. This makes twice the work. Alternatively, the student may just loose interest in learning at all, because they haven’t learned the skill of converting the information yet. As an NLP Learning Coach, I help my clients know their prefered learning type, and then show how they can use that information to help them the most. See further details at www.anitamitchell.co.uk. Here’s the article.

A University of Pennsylvania psychology study, using functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to scan the brain, reveals that people who consider themselves visual learners, as opposed to verbal learners, have a tendency to convert linguistically presented information into a visual mental representation. The more strongly an individual identified with the visual cognitive style, the more that individual activated the visual cortex when reading words.

The opposite also appears to be true from the study’s results.

Those participants who considered themselves verbal learners were found under fMRI to have brain activity in a region associated with phonological cognition when faced with a picture, suggesting they have a tendency to convert pictorial information into linguistic representations.

The study was presented this week at the 16th Annual Cognitive Neuroscience Society Meeting.

Future research based on the findings from this study may be able to determine whether cognitive styles are something one is predisposed to or can learn. Depending on the flexibility with which one can adopt a style, educators could cater to one style over another to improve learning.

It has long been thought that propensities for visual or verbal learning styles influence how children acquire knowledge successfully and how adults reason in every-day life; however, there was no empirical link to this hypothesis from cognitive neuroscience.

‘Often, job applicants are required to offer opinion on whether they consider themselves visual or verbal learners,’ Sharon Thompson-Schill, professor in the Department of Psychology and a member of Penn’s Centre for Cognitive Neuroscience, said. ‘Some school districts even require students to wear buttons identifying themselves as visual or verbal learners. Until this study, however, there was no direct evidence linking these cognitive styles to specific neural systems in the brain.’

In the Penn study, visual and verbal cognitive styles were measured in 18 subjects by a self-report exam called the Verbaliser – Visualiser Questionnaire. The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, a standard intelligence test used here to grade visual against verbal learning styles, then measured cognitive abilities. Participants subsequently participated in a functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment.

During the fMRI session, participants performed a novel psychological task, a more sophisticated version of the childhood board game Memory, involving both word-based and picture-based feature-matching conditions designed to permit the use of either a visual or a verbal processing style.

Results of the study demonstrated a pattern of activity in modality-specific areas of the brain that distinguished visual from verbal cognitive styles. The areas did correspond with prior knowledge of brain utilisation. During word-based tasks, activity in a functionally defined brain region that responded to viewing pictorial stimuli, the fusiform gyrus, correlated with self-reported visualiser ratings on the VVQ test.

In contrast, activity in a phonologically related brain region, the supramarginal gyrus, correlated with the verbaliser dimension of the VVQ during the picture-based condition. These findings suggest that modality-specific cortical activity underlies processing in visual and verbal cognitive styles.
Source: Penn: Office of University Communications

Pregnancy Health Grant

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

The money can be claimed fairly easily from your 25th week of pregnancy, after receiving health advice from a midwife, or other health professional.

If you are a mum-to-be, with a baby due on or after 6 April 2009, then you could be eligible for a new Pregnancy Health Grant of £190.

The one-off payment is intended to help pregnant mums stay fit and healthy in the run up to the birth, and help meet some of the costs involved. You might like to consider using the grant to participate in the Confident Childbirth Course that I run to help you prepare for the pregnancy, labour and birth of your baby. Click here to find out more.

You’ll be given a claim form to sign and send off, which you must do within 31 days. When your claim is approved, the money is paid directly into your bank or building society account.

For Further information please visit http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/hipg/payments.htm.

Kids with ADHD May Learn Better by Fidgeting

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

This article published on March 25th 2009, in Time, Health & Science talks about a four year study which suggests that a better approach (than some of the medications currently prescibed)  for ADHD children (at least those who are not hyperactive to the point of breaking things) is to let them move around as much as they would like.

Cognitive Hypntherapy and NLP have long suggested that we need to work at our clients pace and allow them to do it their way, not our way. We, as therapists know that all behaviour has a purpose. It’s good to find our that studies back up our therories.

Here is the article. Hope you find it interesting.

www.anitamitchell.co.uk

 

By John Cloud

Like nose-picking and a preoccupation with feculence, the inability to sit still for long periods is a defining characteristic of childhood. But children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often squirm constantly, even when other kids can remain still. Many parents and teachers respond by trying to get ADHD kids, at any cost, to stop fidgeting. The assumption is that if they could just stop wriggling, they would be able to focus and learn.

But a new study suggests that a better approach for ADHD kids (at least those who are not hyperactive to the point of breaking things) is to let them move all they want. That’s because many kids use their movements — like swiveling in a chair or folding a leg underneath themselves and bouncing in a desk seat or repeatedly lolling and righting their head — the way many adults use caffeine: to stay focused. In other words, it may be that excessive movement doesn’t prevent learning but actually facilitates it. (See the top 10 medical breakthroughs of 2008.)

Longtime ADHD researcher Mark Rapport supervised the study, which is set to be published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. Rapport, a professor at the University of Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando, notes that our activity level — how much we move around in everyday situations — is one of the most fixed parts of our personalities. If you are a fidgety kid, you will be a fidgety adult, even if you learn to manage your movements with caffeine, stress-reduction, a personal trainer or other adult accoutrements.

The idea that stimulants like caffeine (or Ritalin or even something stronger like cocaine) can help you sit still and pay attention seems counterintuitive at first. But that surprising fact lies at the heart of Rapport’s work: stimulants augment your working, or short-term, memory, where information is stored temporarily and used to carry out deliberate tasks like, say, solving a challenging math problem. ADHD kids have a hard time with working memory because they lack adequate cortical arousal, and Rapport believes that their squirms and fidgets help stimulate that arousal.

His study was small — just 23 boys ages 8 to 12 participated — but uncompromisingly meticulous; it took four years to complete. Twelve of the boys had an ADHD diagnosis. The other 11 were developing normally. All underwent a battery of tests at Rapport’s lab over four consecutive Saturdays.

Since I’ve always been fidgety, I asked Rapport if he wouldn’t mind putting me through the same tests he gave the boys. And so last week I found myself at the UCF Psychology Department, where a grad student affixed a device called an actigraph to my left wrist. Actigraphs look like digital watches and generate a signal each time they are moved, even slightly. They allow researchers to measure, quite precisely, a subject’s kinetic activity. The boys in Rapport’s experiments wore actigraphs on their ankles as well as their wrists because kids are often just as twitchy below the waist as above. (See the most common hospital mishaps.)

Wearing the actigraph, I sat before a computer in a small windowless room and took working-memory tests. For one test, I had to recite aloud a series of numbers that appeared on the screen. I was asked not only to remember the numbers but also to restate them in proper numerical order. So if I saw 4, then 3, then 1, then 8, I had to say, “One, three, four, eight.” Each series of numbers also included a random letter, which I had to state at the end: “One, three, four, eight, D.”

At first the test sounded simple, not least because I knew an 8-year-old could ostensibly complete it. But I found it quite difficult. Working-memory tests require intense concentration, and I was distracted because I was nervous. Rapport, several of his grad students, a UCF public relations official and a friend of mine were all watching me through an open doorway while I performed the tests. I ended up scoring worse than some of Rapport’s kids.

My experience of being nervous was instructive because it mimicked, in a way, the cognitive strain under which an ADHD kid takes such tests. ADHD compromises the brain’s executive functioning — its ability to master unexpected exercises. The same way I got nervous, ADHD kids get momentarily lost, their attention fractured for a few seconds. Think about when you’re reading and get to the end of a paragraph and realize you haven’t been paying attention: that’s what it’s like for ADHD kids, all the time. My actigraph scores confirmed that I wasn’t operating normally for a 38-year-old adult. Instead, during the experiment, I displayed the involuntary body movements of a typical 12-year-old boy. (See pictures of a diverse group of American teens.)

Rapport also conducted a control experiment with the boys in which they watched the pod-racing scene from Star Wars: Episode I — The Phantom Menace. He showed me a video of a couple of the boys watching the scene, and I was shocked: even the ADHD kids who had spun around endlessly during their cognitive tests sat perfectly still while they watched the pod race. The film clip required almost no working memory, no concentrated effort. The scene simply washed over the passively watching boys, none of whom had to move around to stay alert.

Which suggests a classroom technique for ADHD kids: Don’t overly tax their working memory. Rapport, who used to be a school psychologist, says the average teacher doesn’t understand how ADHD kids process information. “If you go into a typical classroom,” he told me, “you might hear, ‘Take out the book. Turn to page 23. Do items 1 through 8, but don’t do 5.’ And you’ve just given them four or five directions. The child with working-memory problems has dropped three of them, and so he’s like, ‘Page 23 — what I am supposed to do?’ ” Similarly, a parent might tell a kid, “Take my keys, go to the car, get your sister’s toy, and before you go, take the trash with you.” The ADHD kid will get to the car without remembering what else to do. Their instructions must be broken down carefully because their working memory is weak.

When I asked Rapport whether there’s a cure other than breaking down instructions, his answer was a bit depressing: no. ADHD is incurable. Drugs like Ritalin are a common answer for controlling the condition, which affects about 3% to 5% of children, but Rapport notes that they have proven to be only a limited solution. In the short term, they can facilitate a child’s ability to read — undoubtedly a crucial benefit — but Rapport says longitudinal studies have failed to show that Ritalin or other psychostimulants have consistent long-term behavioral effects. (Even if they did, another question would arise: Would you want to be dependent on a stimulant for the rest of your life?) Rapport hopes that his work will lead to the development of early behavioral and cognitive interventions that could help the youngest ADHD kids recognize, predict and somehow avoid ADHD’s concentration gaps.

Such research is in its infancy, though, and if you have a child with ADHD, it’s important to understand that he processes the world in a different way. He might be (literally) running circles around you, but that may be his way of paying attention.

Think ahead, live longer

Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

This article published in ABC Health and Wellbeing is very much in keeping with thoughts from Cognitive Hypnotherapy – imagine the future you want, and then allow the unconscious mind to guide you towards it (whilst doing a little work along the way to help the process, of course! See my website for details www.anitamitchell.co.uk):

The Pulse

by Peter Lavelle

People who plan ahead and think of the future are often healthier than those living for the here-and-now, argues a prominent US psychologist. Published 12/03/2009 

Do you live for the present, without worrying about tomorrow? Do you view the future through the prism of what’s happened to you in the past? Or do you keep one eye on the future in everything you do? Whichever you do, will impact directly on your health, argues US psychologist Philip Zimbardo. Zimbardo, Emeritus Professor at Stanford University, is the author of a new book The Time Paradox: The New Psychology of Time That Will Change Your Life. In it he argues people tend to make decisions based on whether they are orientated to the past, present or future. Some people are dominated by their past experiences and this influences how they make decisions now. These past experiences may be positive – family or cultural traditions or rewards for good things they’ve done in the past – or they may be negative events – past traumas influencing what they do in the present. People with post-traumatic stress syndrome have been negatively influenced by their past. Other people are orientated towards the present. They seek immediate rewards, without much thought for the future, and are influenced by their body sensations and physiology (hunger, thirst, desire for sex etc) or what their peer group is doing. Rather than plan ahead, these people often rely on luck or fate and they tend to have lower levels of impulse control and emotional stability. Zimbardo says people who have addictions are very often present-thinkers, as are gamblers or those who run up credit card debts. Then there are people who are focused on the future, these people think of the consequences of their actions. They are good at controlling their egos and impulses; are conscientious, consistent, non-aggressive, and have low levels of depression. In reality we all have a bit of past, present and future orientation, but we tend to be skewed to one and underuse the others, says Zimbardo. He argues your time perspective may depend on many things including the climate you live in, your religion, your education (more educated people tend to be more future thinking), your gender (women are more future thinking than men), what income you earn (poorer people tend to be more present-orientated) and your age. In fact, we are all born present-thinkers, but become more focused on the future as we age, often in response to pressure from society. Many of the stories, nursery rhymes and games we play as kids encourage us to be forward-thinking; as does school and higher education. But being totally future-oriented is also unhealthy, says Zimbardo. Excessive emphasis on the future causes anxiety in the here and now, (as to how things might turn out) which can lead to social isolation and performance anxiety (especially anxiety about sexual performance). This is where present-oriented thinkers have some advantages; they make friends easily (being the ‘life of the party’), they are creative thinkers and have plenty of energy to enable them to achieve their goals. Being past-oriented (especially if your past experiences are positive) also has some advantages. Your family or culture may give you a sense of identity and continuity and provide you with positive role models. So what we need is a balance of all three ways of thinking. Healthy future So what does all this have do with your health? Zimbardo suggests there’s a very strong correlation between future orientation and health – the more future-oriented you are, the healthier you’ll be and the longer you’re likely to live. Research published in the British Journal of Health Psychology last month supports Zimbardo’s theory. Studies show people who are future thinkers tend to use drugs less, and adopt safe sex practices, the researchers say. Future thinkers also tend to be less likely to smoke and have healthier body mass indices, they conclude, after studying a group of about 400 people who answered questions about their health and lifestyles and who also underwent psychological testing including the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZPTI) – a questionnaire Zimbardo helped develop in 1999 to test how people’s time perspective affects their decision making. (If you’re curious about which orientation you might be, do Zimbardo’s inventory yourself – just follow the link at the bottom of this page). On the other hand, other studies have shown that future-thinking doesn’t have much effect on whether people will get vaccinated, or stick to taking blood pressure or cholesterol medications. So future-thinking seems to be a factor in changing some behaviour but not others, say the British researchers. Getting the message out One of the challenges facing policymakers and health workers in preventative health is how to get people to forego junk food, drugs and alcohol, a sedentary lifestyle, for rewards that may be long into the future. But some public health messages may not be reaching their intended audience, says Zimbardo. Anti-drug campaigns warning of the future health risks of drug taking, for example, may be doomed to failure because their target audience (people inclined to use drugs) often live in the present and won’t listen to messages about the future. Peter Sainsbury, an Adjunct Professor of Public Health at Sydney University, agrees one of the challenges of mounting an effective public health program is to get people to change their behaviour for long-term benefits. “So you may need to give them a reason to change their behaviour in the here-and-now,” says Sainsbury. “For example, smokers may be more likely to quit if they think there’s an immediate benefit – better smelling breath, more success with the opposite sex for example, rather than the promise of better health twenty years from now.”