AU Blogspot

Photo courtesy of David_Mellis

Among the many news feeds crossing my desktop, one really stood out–how to make myself smarter! I’m definitely going to read that paper.In a nutshell, Oscar Ybarra of the University of Michigan and his colleagues suggest that human beings are such social animals, that we actually improve our cognitive function after only ten minutes of social interaction [1].Students were randomly assigned to dyads and given the task of discussing a social issue, protection of privacy, for ten minutes. Other participants took a short reading comprehension task, did a crossword puzzle, and completed a figure rotation task. These tasks were designed to give the participants something intellectually stimulating to do that was not particularly social, as the tasks were completed by individuals working alone. Control participants watched a 10-minute sequence of Seinfeld by themselves. Subsequently, all participants completed a speed of processing task (are these dots the same or different?) and a working memory task (object recognition).Based on previous research, it was not surprising to see the participants doing the intellectual activities (figure rotation et al.) showed higher levels of cognitive functioning in the post-tests compared to the TV-watching control group. I have always thought that most TV makes us somewhat brain-dead, and much prefer to see children using any indoors time playing interactive videogames than watching TV. Okay, Stargate and football are obvious exceptions at our house. (more…)

                   Thanks to dbking for permission to use this Photo.

It was meant to be a special Halloween night episode of the American radio program, Mercury Theatre on the Air. Directed by 23-year old Orson Welles, the program was an adaptation of H.G. Wells’ classic novel The War of the Worlds. The screenplay for the show introduced an unprecedented innovation for  American radio: use of a fake newscast to provide listeners with the experience of actually living through an alien invasion.

Broadcast from a studio in New York City on October 30, 1938, the program was presented as an ordinary music program that was frequently interrupted by news bulletins. After first describing strange explosions on Mars (Welles played a prominent astronomer), listeners were then told of the landing of a strange “meteorite” in Grover’s Mills, New Jersey. The meteorite turns out to be a Martian capsule which then destroys hundreds of onlookers with “heat rays”. As the episode continued, more Martian ships land and devastation is unleashed across the entire United States.

Despite military resistance, the Martian invaders prove too strong and unleash terrible weapons including “poison gas” sprayed into the air. New York City is invaded by “great machines” wading across the Hudson River. Coverage of the invasion is provided by a “news reporter” who describes “people dropping like flies” until he is killed by the poison gas himself. The broadcast ends with Welles (in his role as the astronomer) telling listeners about the devastation and how the Martians were destroyed by Earth’s bacteria.

Later reports came out about the”panic” the resulted from the broadcast but there is still debate over how widespread it really was. Although disclaimers that the invasion was fictional were inserted at several points in the program, many listeners were still convinced that the invasion was real . Later estimates placed the number of listeners at six million with 1.2 million believing it to be “genuinely true”. Incidents of actual panic remain scarce although reports of people fleeing their homes or hiding in their cellars to avoid the “poison gas” came out afterward. (more…)

          Thanks to Sylvia Ortiz Domney for permission to use this Photo. 

How do we choose a life partner?  Magazine articles on choosing the right mate abound.  “What should you look for in that special someone?”  “What is the ideal man/woman?”  Take a minute to think about that.  What do you want in a life partner?  What words come to mind to describe your Princess or Prince Charming?  Whatever you’re looking for, or have already found, the words you have chosen to describe your “ideal mate” are almost certainly personality traits: kind, considerate, funny, ambitious, loving.   

Somewhere on your list are probably good-looking and healthy, but even things like health are affected by the personality.  The things you want in a life partner are pretty much the same things that everyone else is looking for.   

So, do we get what we’re looking for?  Generally, we do.  But, a better question might be, are we happy with what we get?  Well, that depends upon what you were looking for in the first place.  You are most likely to be happy if you look for, and end up with, someone who is agreeable, emotionally stable, and open. 

The next question that might come to mind is how can we know if the relationship with that special someone will last?  Well, for starters you can assume that marrying someone who is the opposite of agreeable, emotionally stable, and open, is probably a bad idea.  Low impulse control and lack of dependability also predict relationship breakup.  And, finally, relationships seem to work best when the partners are similar in background, religion, goals, education, and personality.  Fortunately, we tend to meet people like ourselves, because we gravitate toward certain types of situations that are compatible with our own personalities.  Selection of situations, then, enhances our chances for meeting like-minded people.  If, for example, you are bookish and quiet, you are likely to spend time in a library or museum, where you will meet other bookish and quiet people. 

So, have you found what you’re looking for?  Are you more alike or different?  Please share your thoughts with our Ashworth University psychology community!

Dr. Carol Simons
Psychology Program Instructor
Ashworth University

 
                Thanks to auntyevil for permission to use this Photo.

One concept that’s particularly influential in contemporary culture is that of social currency, an abstract exchange value that we’re all unconsciously aware of and have perhaps unknowingly utilized as a tool to gain interactive access to others on a social level.  Content is essentially seen as a medium for interaction, not an end in itself, but more importantly a basis for human interaction.  A new study was recently published on the “psychology of social networks” and the researchers do an admirable job of piecing together the social puzzle without drawing too many predetermined conclusions.  In other words, within an Internet-oriented context, they accept that the network model of human communication can not be studied from a static perspective.  The behavior of humans in an online environment does not parallel that of monkeys in a cage, perhaps less due to the complexity of humans than the fact that the virtual cage is always unlocked, permitting us to come and go as we please—as long as we’re never alone of course.  Check out this interesting study and please share your perspectives with the Ashworth student community.

Ryan Rode
Interactive Services Manager
Ashworth University