Adventures in journalism, psychology, and New York City.

Archive for March, 2008

Is a $5000 Prostitute Worth the Price?

wine bottle with fake labelLast week I wrote about how the placebo effect can have a potent effect on medical symptoms. The reason: the power of expectations. We expect to get better and so we do.

Here’s a related thought experiment. Suppose I’m a sommelier and someone orders a $20 bottle of wine and I serve it to them. Then another customer orders a $100 bottle of wine. Is it unethical for me to serve them the $20 bottle and tell them it’s the $100 bottle? What if they can’t tell the difference?

And here’s the real question: What if the person who thinks it’s a $100 bottle actually enjoys it more?

That’s just what a team at Caltech and Stanford recently did, and brain scans confirmed that people don’t just think the more expensive (but identical) wine tasted better—it actually really did taste better, as reflected by brain scans that showed their pleasure centers lighting up like Christmas trees. The phenomenon is called the price-placebo effect, and it, too, is fueled by the the power of expectations. Cognitive dissonance may also play a role: If you pay that much, you reason, it must be worth it, and the large psychological investment actually increases your satisfaction.

As Jonah Lehrer puts it in his Boston Globe article:

People assume that they perceive reality as it is, that our senses accurately record the outside world. Yet the science suggests that, in important ways, people experience reality not as it is, but as they expect it to be.

KristinThe same thing may have been going on with Eliot Spitzer, suggests Shankar Vedantam in Sunday’s Washington Post. It is, after all, hard to fathom how a $5000 sexual encounter could be that much better than a $500 one. But the mere expectation that it will be better may be sufficient to actually make it better. And it may be that had we scanned Spitzer’s brain in medias res, we would have seen not only that he thought it was better, but that he was actually deriving more pleasure than a governor in another room who was paying only $500 or $50.

Sure, Spitzer is a hypocrite and a cheater, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t getting a good value from his hookers.

This post originally appeared on Brainstorm, at Psychology Today Blogs.

Self-Deprecation Is a People Skill

Self-Deprecator In Chief
Self-Deprecator In Chief

When someone finds out I work for Psychology Today, they always react the same way. “Oh really?” they say. “Are you a psychologist?” This response is so reliable that my colleague Carlin Flora warned me about it my first day on the job.

“Ha ha, no!” I usually reply. “I’m not nearly that well educated. I’m just a journalist.” We at the magazine are not academics; many of us have undergraduate degrees in psychology, but for the most part we’re trained as writers and editors. “It’s like how you don’t have to be a chef to be a food writer,” I’ll sometimes add. “We interview experts when we’re reporting articles, but we’re not academic researchers ourselves.”

The other thing that happens is that people label you a psychology expert and probably give you more credit than you deserve. It’s like what Conan O’Brien says about how people pigeonhole him after they find out he went to Harvard:

You’re in for a lifetime of “And you went to Harvard?” Accidentally give the wrong amount of change in a transaction and it’s “And you went to Harvard?” Ask the guy at the hardware store how these jumper cables work and hear, “And you went to Harvard?” Forget just once that your underwear goes inside your pants and it’s, “And you went to Harvard.” Get your head stuck in your niece’s dollhouse because you wanted to see what it was like to be a giant and it’s “Uncle Conan, you went to Harvard?” (text/video)

There’s something about the word “psychology” that changes the way people perceive you. My colleague Matt Hutson has written about how people are more likely to believe an explanation that mentions neurology. Maybe something similar happens when I drop the P-bomb.

When people find out I work for Psychology Today, they become hyper-attuned to the faintest trace of psychological insight in anything I say. This happens, for instance, whenever I give someone dating advice they find remotely helpful, even if the advice I provide is the most bargain-basement form of common sense. “Aha, you see!” they’ll say. “That’s why you work for Psychology Today!”

It doesn’t quite make sense. My dating advice is no better or worse than it ever was—and is probably far worse than average. But for some reason people feel an exaggerated need to connect my observational perspective to my job title. It’s funny how people attribute personality elements to you based on your job, even if those things were there all along.

Here’s another example. I recently caught up with Kien Dang, a friend from high school whom I hadn’t seen since graduation. He’d Facebooked me out of the blue, asking me how I was doing and saying he’d heard I’d left Canada and was living in New York. He’s now a psychiatrist, working at a hospital in Toronto with organ transplant donors and recipients. So when I was home in Ottawa over the winter holidays, Kien and I had dinner, along with our friend Sujatha Jahagirdar, another friend from high school who’s now an environmental organizer in California. As we talked about our lives, we marveled at how different we were from the people we used to be.

“Look at you, Kien,” said Sujatha. “I mean, you’re a psychiatrist working in a hospital! Think about how far you’ve come. You got your medical degree, you specialized, you’ve developed all these people skills!”

“No, no,” said Kien. “My people skills are probably not nearly as good as you’d think.”

“Well that’s a case in point,” I said. “Self-deprecation is itself a people skill.” And it’s true. The smartest people I know are also the most humble, making others comfortable by downplaying their abilities.

They both turned to me. “Good pickup,” said Kien. “You got me!”

“See!” said Sujatha. “That’s why you work for Psychology Today!”

This post originally appeared on Brainstorm, at Psychology Today Blogs.

Chop Suey, American Comfort Food

I spent the weekend reading my friend Jenny Lee’s new book, The Fortune Cookie Chronicles: Adventures in the World of Chinese Food. It’s a wonderful account of Jenny’s journey across 42 states and 23 countries around the world as she uncovers secrets about Chinese food.

The main point of the book is that the foods we think of as Chinese—chop suey, General Tso’s chicken, fortune cookies—aren’t. Like Jenny herself, those foods look Chinese, but they’re actually American. Chop suey was invented here. General Tso’s was invented here. The white takeout boxes were invented here. Even fortune cookies, the most iconic of all Chinese foods, originally came from Japan before being popularized here in the United States. As Jenny puts it: “Our benchmark for Americanness is apple pie. But ask yourself: How often do you eat apple pie? How often do you eat Chinese food?”


Jennifer 8. Lee on The Colbert Report
 

Really what Jenny is saying is that Chinese food is not only all-American, but has become a true American comfort food. There are more Chinese restaurants in America than McDonald’s, Burger Kings, and KFCs combined. Weary interstate truckers love Chinese restaurants because every town has one and the food is always the same. It’s become traditional for Jews to eat at Chinese restaurants on Christmas, which is how, as Jenny puts it, chow mein became the chosen food of the chosen people. Even Baghdad’s Green Zone has two improvised Chinese restaurants for homesick American journalists. “It’s a taste of home,” a foreign service officer deployed in Iraq explains to Jenny. “What could be more American than beer and take-out Chinese?”

This got me thinking about my own comfort foods. There are a few foods that always make me happy. Like Proust’s madeleine, or the vegetable stew that transports the critic back to his mother’s kitchen in Ratatouille, these are foods that whisk me back to my childhood every time I taste them: Pepperoni pizza with Fresca, which my parents, brother, and I used to eat every Friday on the hearth by the fire; blueberry muffins, which I would eat every week after swimming lessons, chewing the paper wrapper long after the last crumbs were gone; peanut butter on toast with orange juice, my father’s morning ritual; Cinnamon Life, a breakfast cereal that was unavailable in Canada and which I got to enjoy only when I visited my grandma in Minnesota; and mint chocolate chip ice cream, which I used to eat with my mom after dinner. I see only in retrospect that four out of the five foods I’ve written have family members inextirpably associated with them.

But that’s exactly how a food becomes a comfort food. As Cornell food psychologist Brian Wansink puts it:

Past associations with products can be cognitively connected with specific individuals (”My father loved green bean casserole,” or “My college sweetheart always mixed M&Ms in with popcorn when we went to the movies”), or specific events (”My Mom always gave me soup when it was cold out or when I was not feeling well”). They also come to be associated with specific feelings that one likes to recall or wants to recapture (”We always got ice cream after we won baseball games as a kid,” or “I always associate Slurpees with carefree summers as a boy”). In some cases, these are vivid iconic instances one can flash on when thinking, tasting, or smelling the food. Yet in all instances, the general feelings evoked—feelings of safety, love, homecoming, appreciation, control, victory, or empowerment—are what underlies the drive toward consumption.

Wansink has uncovered all kinds of remarkable findings in his studies of our comfort food preferences. Men and women have strikingly different tastes in comfort foods: Women prefer sweets, while men take more comfort from hot foods and main meals. Preferences also vary by age: Young adults draw succor from ice cream and cookies, the middle-aged love soup and pasta, while the elderly can’t get enough soup and mashed potatoes. Contrary to popular belief, people seek out comfort foods not just when they’re depressed but also when they’re happy, and people take comfort in different foods during different moods, such as happiness (pizza or steak), sadness (ice cream and cookies), and boredom (potato chips).

A final factor is personality identification. A manly man might feel red meat is a strong, traditional, macho, all-American food, but that soy isn’t. The overarching message is that our tastes don’t develop by accident. “While the French may believe there’s no controlling for taste,” Wansink concludes, “the data disagree.”

_______

* In case you’re wondering, what Jenny says in Mandarin is, “I started working on this book serveral years ago and now I’m on your television program talking about it.”

This post originally appeared on Brainstorm, at Psychology Today Blogs.

The Sincerest Form of Flattery

silly walkI’m not sure how I first became interested in accents. The obvious suspect upon whom to pin the blame would be my father, an immigrant from India who speaks with what you might call a subtle foreign accent. Growing up, when my brother and I needed to do an impression of him, it wound up coming out like Apu from the Simpsons. But in reality his accent is an elegant mix of the Bhopal of his youth, the Delhi of his teen years, the Chicago of his doctoral days, the Canada of my childhood, and the France where he spent years working at CERN—and the combination is, I promise you, utterly inimitable.

More likely my interest started when, as a high school geek, I began incessantly reciting my favorite lines from Monty Python. “Course sah! It’s a cheese shop, sah!” “She turned me into a newt! … I got better.” “Help, help, I’m being repressed!” Of course, reciting these without the proper accent would be even more pointless than it already is. I’m convinced my precocious interest in other forms of British humor (Blackadder, Yes Prime Minister, Fawlty Towers) derived at least from the bottomless font of memorizable dialogue they provided me. One might even attribute my love of Shakespeare to the same factor. Peter Sellers was a revelation, not just his Inspector Clouseau (”Do you have a rhyum?”) but also the proto-Apu Indian actor he plays in The Party (”Birdie nam nam!”).

Indeed, such was my enthusiasm for accents that I went so far as to order an audiobook called Accent Monologues for Actors, which I practiced out loud, and I acquired the habit of repeating the lines spoken by characters on TV to try to simulate their accents. In my prime, I could do different kinds of German (the barking Nazi stormtrooper vs. the refined watchmaker), English (Oxbridge vs. Cockney vs. Liverpool), and many Indian relatives (with varying levels of Western education in their voices). Thus began a lifetime of constant and annoying recitation of accented lines.

Peter Sellers does various British accents.

This vocal mimicry continued through the Captain Picard years (”Engage!”), through the Schwarzenegger years (”Honey, let’s do it!” “Do what?” “Move to Mars!”), the Apu years (”If I don’t make it, promise you won’t sleep with my wife.” “I promise nothing!”), the Gandhi years (”Then they will have my dead body… not my obedience!”) the Clinton years, “Ah did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky“) and through to the present day, with (poor) impressions of Ali G and Borat.

Some people are better mimics than others. In Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Kevin Costner’s attempt at an English accent was reportedly so atrocious—even after months of accent training from a dialect coach—that he had to overdub the entire movie minus the accent.

But why are people who mangle the language so funny? It may be that the ear expects to hear language spoken a certain way—and the subversion of those expectations creates the surprise necessary for humor. This works not just on the ear but also on the eye. There’s a time-honored tradition of funny accents in literature, the most salient recent example of which is Alexander, the Borat-esque narrator in Everything Is Illuminated.

I’m also fascinated by accent modification, when a person deliberately sheds (or rather more rarely, acquires) an accent different from the dominant one in the place they live. A friend of mine has two uncles who immigrated from Russia at the same time, but one speaks in an eerily flawless American drawl, and the other retains a heavy St. Petersberg brogue. In Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first movie, Hercules Goes Bananas, his garbled English was so incomprehensible that it had to be dubbed over by another actor. (He’s credited as Arnold Strong.) Of course, his accent has now attained iconic status, and is part of the charm of his absurd one-liners.

Accent is a central part of impression management—the way we present ourselves to others—and it has real and measurable effects. There’s a reason newscasters all talk the same way: They’re trained to shed their regionalisms. Accents influence our perceptions of another person’s class, intelligence, friendliness—even their credibility on the witness stand. We’re all familiar with the stereotypes about various accents: British accents are perceived as intelligent and charming, and Southern accents are perceived as dumb. Or is it that British accents are perceived as snobby and Southern accents are perceived as folksy and friendly? It depends on your bias. But I know a British guy who attracted no women when he lived in his native London, but dates more than he can comfortably handle now that he wields the vocal cachet of an Englishman in New York.

The other arena in which accents are highly visible, of course, is politics. At Ivy League colleges, you can tell who’s planning on running for public office because they’re the ones who keep their regional accents while everyone else converges on a generic “educated” accent. Politicians such as Bill Clinton and Mike Huckabee are perceived as folksy—not hoity-toity, able to relate to the people—partly due to their Southern accents. Pundits have wondered whether foreign accents have hampered the political viability of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Teresa Heinz Kerry, and Arianna Huffington. Meanwhile, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both been accused of changing their accent to pander to Southern audiences.

Far be it for me to judge, though. Born and raised in Ottawa, I’ve spoken most of my life with a Canadian accent, peppering my speech liberally with “eh” and “right on!” But in college, I got tired of people making fun of my “oots” and “aboots,” of their grabbing my arm mid-sentence and saying, “Wait a minute, are you from Canada?” So I stopped using the phrases that stopped people in their tracks, and gradually, my speech lost all traces of my Canadian roots. As hard as it is to admit, I guess I was just tired of being perceived as different. My metamorphosis is immortalized in an article in the Yale Daily News about students who allowed their accents to fade. “I’m trying to see if I can pass as American,” I’m quoted as saying. “If Peter Jennings can do it, I can do it.”

But that doesn’t stop me from invoking a classic accent when the mood strikes.

Russell Peters on accents.

This post originally appeared on Brainstorm, at Psychology Today Blogs.

Goal Post

goals. i haz dem. The other night my roommate and I were having a conversation and the subject of goals came up. I had been reading about the state of effortless concentration and enjoyment that psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has famously termed “flow.” Flow occurs when you’re so absorbed in a task that you lose track of everything else. You fall into the rhythm of your activity so completely that all distractions melt away, and may even lose track of time. I mentioned that having a clearly defined goal is an important component in achieving flow.

Read the complete post at Psychology Today’s Brainstorm.

Love in the Time of Neuroscience

evry dayz, 3 o'clockz. mebe one day I sez meow to her.How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

1. I would rather be with you than anyone else.
(strongly disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 strongly agree)

2. I yearn to know all about you.
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

3. For me, you are the perfect romantic partner.
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

4. You always seem to be on my mind.
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

5. I sense my body responding when you touch me.
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)

These are questions from the Passionate Love Scale, a questionnaire psychologists use to measure the intensity of romantic love.

Read the complete post at Psychology Today’s Brainstorm.

Prison Yard Logic

prisoners fighting and gambling, London, 1650

The case of the med school murderer in Sweden has sparked a fascinating debate about the purpose of criminal sentencing itself.

The relevant question is what’s best for society and whether the criminal is likely to harm others in the future. The purpose of the criminal justice system should be not to inflict suffering on prisoners, but to rehabilitate and reduce recidivism.

But the fact is that right now, prisons have precisely the opposite effect. As author Daniel Goleman puts it in Social Intelligence:

Prison is a hellish realm, where convicts struggle in a tooth-and-nail battle; everyone fights to get respect, and toughness wins prestige. The prison yard becomes a jungle where the powerful prevail and fear rules. It’s a psychopath’s paradise, where coolheaded cruelty wins the day… Survival there demands an amygdala that is set for paranoid hypervigilance, plus a protective emotional distance or outright distrust, and a readiness to fight… Prisons are colleges for criminal activity, strengthening an inmate’s predilection and skill sets for criminality. Younger prisoners make the very worst kind of connections in prison, typically becoming mentored by more seasoned inmates, so that on their release they are hardened, angry, and endowed with greater skills as criminals.

When prisons are crime schools that foster hostility, impulsivity, and violence, and the majority of released convicts wind up back in prison, the term “corrections” is a sick joke. Young prisoners suffer most of all. They’re plunged into this environment when their social brains are at their most plastic. No wonder cumulative lifetime recidivism is highest for prisoners 25 and under.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. As Goleman points out, many people who wind up in prison are no doubt there as a result of neural deficits such as impaired empathy and impulse control. Why not create prisons that teach self-awareness, self-control, empathy, emotional regulation, and thinking before acting?

Studies show this can work. Juvenile prisoners who learn how “to stop and think before reacting, to consider solutions and the consequences of different responses, and to stay coolheaded” wind up in fewer fights. In schools, programs that teach conflict and anger management, empathy, and self-management drastically reduce schoolyard fights and bullying.

I’m all for prisoners learning the skills they need to earn an honest living once they’re released. But we should make sure they’re also learning the emotional skills they need to stay out of jail.

Second Acts

The most stirring second act I’ve seen lately is that of Paul Potts, a contestant on Britain’s Got Talent, the United Kingdom’s version of American Idol. A portly cell phone salesman from South Wales with snaggle teeth and an ill-fitting suit, Potts walks nervously onto the stage and shakily announces he’s going to sing opera. “By day, I sell mobile phones,” he says. “My dream is to spend my life doing what I feel that I was born to do.” The judges roll their eyes and exchange skeptical glances, and the audience members braces themselves for a profound humiliation—and for the brutal and sarcastic critique that invariably follows, particularly from the notoriously vicious Simon Cowell. But then the music comes on, and Potts begins to sing. Jaws drop, the audience leaps to its feet, one of the judges bursts into tears—and the curtain rises on the year’s most poignant second act.

Paul Potts Sings Nessun Dorma.

Read the complete post at Psychology Today’s Brainstorm.

Salud!

women drinking If you don’t drink, should you start for health reasons? And if you drink only occasionally, will you be healthier if you start drinking every day?

Read the complete post at Psychology Today’s Brainstorm.