The Winding Path

Some recent research has given me the chance to combine the sort of topic I used to write about with my more recent focus. It’s research headed by Jennifer Crocker of the University of Michigan, on how writing about your important values affects how you feel about yourself, how you feel about other people, and what influence that has on your acceptance of potentially threatening information. If you’d just like to read about the research itself, Science Daily has a good summary. I’m going to go a bit deeper, so read on if you’re up for some mental exercise. Or if you’re a Psychology student. Or someone who can point out anything I might be missing.

Previous research suggests self-affirmation makes it easier for you to accept information which might threaten your sense of self-worth. It was thought that doing something like writing about why your values are important improves self-esteem, and that improvement in self-esteem is what makes hard-to-swallow news more palatable.

Values-affirmation and its affect on positive feelings.

The research done by Jennifer Crocker and her colleagues lead to a different conclusion. In the first of two experiments they had two groups of people rank business, art, social life, science, religion and politics in the order of which they valued most to least. One group then wrote about why their most important value was important to them, while the other wrote about why their least important value might be important to other people. The first group is the experimental group, the second the control group. Afterwards both groups rated their current experience of 18 different feelings, including loving, strong, humble, ashamed, weak, and inferior.

The results showed that feelings of love increased regardless of which value the person rated as important. In other words, out of everyone who rated social life as the most important value, those who wrote about why it was important to them (the experimental group) felt more loving than those who wrote about why a less important value might be important to others (the control group). The researchers reported that the same applied for all the other values.

The thing that caught my eye was that those who rated science as their most important value felt less love than all the rest, and that the difference between those who wrote about their important value versus other people’s was slightly less likely to be replicated if the experiment were done again (though still much higher than chance). Also, there wasn’t a big difference between those in the control group who ranked social life and religion as most important, compared to those in the experimental group who ranked science as their most important.

This raises a question which the study didn’t seem to address; how does a particular value influence particular feelings? The results showed that writing about your most important value did increase a range of positive feelings, but it didn’t show how the feelings of people with different values changed, except for the feeling of love, which arguably was affected a little differently when the most important value was science.

It would have been useful to see how each individual’s feelings changed before and after the task. The experiments only compared different groups of people after the task; it didn’t see what kind of changes there were for people within each group. If, for example, the small number of people who valued science highly just happened to be split into one group who were already more loving versus those who were already slightly less, then it would appear as if the task itself lead to an increase in loving feelings, whereas the truth is the differences where already there before the task.

That probably isn’t the case for people whose most important value was something other than science, since for them there was a big difference between the tasks. Also, there were more people in those groups which means it’s less likely that the differences were a result of which group the people happened to end up in.

Transcending the self.

Still, that question doesn’t really affect the researchers’ conclusions. And that was only half of the study. The other half looked at how writing about your values can affect how well you accept information which might threaten some aspect of your self-worth. A different group of participants did the same tasks as in the first experiment, but they were also shown some fake research about how smoking increases risk for a specific, dangerous medical issue. Some participants were smokers and some weren’t; the results showed those who smoked were more accepting of the fake research if they wrote about their most important value.

The researchers suggested that affirming your values allows you to “transcend the self”; not in a metaphysical sense, but by shifting your focus away from potential personal threat to the other things you care about (including people, of course).

No hand-waving advice for me, thanks.

Lots of people have been saying the same thing for a long time. Especially spiritual leaders and authors of self-help books. Perhaps that’s why most other research on this topic has produced different conclusions; scientists don’t tend to hold the advice of self-proclaimed experts in high regard. And there’s good reason for this; those who promote a solely personal-experience-based way of figuring out if something works have never, as far as I’m aware, given advice in anything but a very broad sense. It’s as if you asked someone how you could find Mars in the night sky, and they told you to look up. But clearly scientists can learn something from the musings of those who are less precise, even if it’s only an obvious answer their tight focus has blinded them to. I hope it’s something people take on board, especially those involved in research which falls under the relatively new category of Positive Psychology. An idea which comes from an unexpected source might still be a good idea.

Another reason for being cautious of accepting anecdotal evidence is that it’s hard to figure out if what was claimed to work really did have an effect. And if it did, would it work as well for someone else? That’s an extremely important consideration when you’re in the business of giving advice; the more accurately you can tailor the advice to a particular person, the more likely they are to accept that advice, and the more likely it is that advice will be effective. This research shows that affirmation of your most important value will make it easier to accept advice you might otherwise not. But perhaps those who value science would achieve a better result through some other task. As the researchers mentioned, different activities might affect different aspects of a person in different ways, and more research will help us figure that out.

Related entries:

• Belief Colourblindness
• An interesting and fun way to explain the nature of science
• Do you really want to know the Truth?

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

In today’s world telephones, mobile phones, TV, radio, the Internet, and all other forms of communication have brought distant parts of the world much closer than ever before. Yet those mediums (not to mention the Media) have created a paradox; the world is smaller, yet simultaneously far larger than ever before. In developed nations (which every year includes more and more of the world) most people have access to more opportunities for learning than, say, early 18th century England. That might seem like common sense, but it’s important to understand what those ample opportunities mean for us today. We not only all have access to basic education, but most of us¹, regardless of what our parents do for a living, have access to just about any field of education we desire, and any specialisation within that field, limited only by our abilities. When that field is science, I think it’s important to understand a few key concepts which are often misunderstood.

Lots of you might think at this point, “That’s great, but I’m going to run a business/become a pro sportsperson/become an artist/do something else that doesn’t require a lot of specialised education, why should I care so much about science?” And you’d be right, to a degree. You certainly can get far in this world without a lot of higher education, or, with a bit of effort, possibly not much more than a basic first six years of schooling (or something equivalent). But in today’s world, if you don’t understand the basic concepts of science, i.e., what science is and what it isn’t, then you’re likely to miss out on a lot that this world has to offer.

So what is science?

At its core, science is a collection of knowledge, and methods of gathering that collection. Science is what you do when you try to figure out, as accurately as possible, what caused something you’ve observed. Those observations can be of human behaviour and culture; the social sciences (e.g., psychology and anthropology). Or we can observe everything else in the world, as it done in the natural sciences (e.g., physics and chemistry)². The terms “hard” and “soft” are also often used to refer to natural vs. social sciences, but in either case observations are made, and then hypotheses are formed. A hypothesis is a tentative but carefully considered attempt at explaining the observations. Scientists then put those hypotheses to the test, over and over again. A test might take the form of a structured experiment, or a study in a natural environment. In both cases the research is designed to eliminate any factors which might affect the results in important but disruptive ways. Ways which might prevent accurate interpretation of the results. For example if a researcher wanted to find out if a new education program was effective, it would be necessary to make sure the children included in the study aren’t all more intelligent than other children who might be included in the program in the future. Otherwise it would seem as if the program was effective when in reality those particular children could probably do well in any educational program. In other words, it would look like the educational program worked really well, but ultimately the children who took part in the program were just smarter than average.

The process of observation, hypothesis formation, and repeated testing forms the core of the scientific method. If the tests support the hypothesis then we can say there’s evidence that the hypothesis is valid, but that doesn’t mean the hypothesis has been proven! New evidence might one day show that, under circumstances which the scientists weren’t able to foresee, the hypothesis was wrong. That means it’s possible to show that a hypothesis is false but it’s not possible to show that a hypothesis will be 100% correct under all possible circumstances for all time. Fortunately it’s not necessary for a hypothesis to be true no matter what. You just have to show that you’ve accounted for all relevant observations, and that the conclusion you reach fits into the collection of knowledge we’ve already gathered. Once you reach that point you can build some of those well-supported hypotheses into a framework which provides a holistic explanation of a specific aspect of the universe. That framework is called a scientific theory. So you can see that a scientific theory is a solid framework of knowledge about a specific aspect of the world which has been put to (and withstood) repeated, thorough investigation. If a scientific theory were a physical thing it would be like a bridge constructed out of the strongest material currently available, built according to strict engineering principles to ensure its safety, and even still it would be evaluated regularly to make sure it stands up to the test of time.

Science applies to everything we can observe.

Since science deals with human behaviour and culture, as well as everything else within the natural world, as long as it can be observed it can be the focus of scientific study. This has historically been a bit of a problem (note: understatement) for various forms of religion as the leaders of those religions have considered many subjects which came under scientific scrutiny to be unquestionable. Thankfully not all followers of any religion accepted the tenets of their faith wholly without question, but enough did, and continue to do so, to create the perception that there are some things in this world which science simply can’t touch. Unfortunately this perception all too often extends to concepts which science does have some explanation for. Like music.

Maybe this is understandable, since non-physical entities supposedly influence the physical world (an obvious example is a soul), and so it might seem reasonable to believe that some natural concepts are a result of non-physical influences. Love, beauty, appreciation of music, goodness, morality; these are all concepts which have at some time or another been said to have a source in a spiritual realm, and that realm is said to be beyond the reach of science. I don’t believe that’s true, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume for a moment that it is true. So what we have is something (spirit, God, some other entity) which exists but is not physical. Those entities are able to influence things in the physical world. If that’s the case, that influence will be observable by scientific means. Perhaps not today with our current level of understanding and technology, but as long as it exists in the natural world, and to affect the natural world it must, at least partially, then its observation under scientific conditions is possible.

Science helps reveal what’s exciting, interesting, and beautiful in the world.

The last paragraph would probably make a lot of people upset. That’s usually the case when firmly held beliefs are challenged. Part of the reason for being upset might be the belief that part of what makes this world wonderful is the mystery and awe inherent in our existence, and science seems to take away that mystery and awe, turning beautiful things like art into something boring and mundane. In response to this perception a man much much wiser than me said:

I have a friend who’s an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don’t agree with. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree. But then he’ll say, “I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull.” I think he’s kind of nutty.

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people - and to me, too, I believe. Although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. But at the same time, I see much more in the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells inside, which also have a beauty. There’s beauty not just at the dimension of one centimeter; there’s also beauty at a smaller dimension.

There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other processes. The fact that the colors of the flower have evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; that means insects can see the colors. That adds a question: does his aesthetic sense we have also exist in lower forms of life? There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts.”

- Richard Feynman, What Do You Care What Other People Think?

Another wiser man said:

There has been a lot of respect shown for mystery lately, but there has been a serious mistake in understanding what it is. Mystery is not, as people would have it, an ignorance of the world. Or more accurately, it is not just an ignorance. What mystery is instead is the permission to discover things on your own.

Contrary to being an ode to ignorance, the appreciation of mystery involves the realization just how much a person could discover. Mystery is a catalyst of action, inviting investigation and analysis, not a passive reception of the unknown. A good mystery novel is not a discussion about ignorance; it’s an adventure detailing how a person acquires knowledge.

-Michael Chui

Science is a tool

And as such it can be used to our benefit, or to our detriment; it’s entirely up to us. It’s possible that the products of science, i.e., technology, will again cause us harm as they have done in the past. The advantage of science, and the quality which helps ensure we don’t use it to cause ourselves harm, is that science admits fault where appropriate. Science doesn’t try to say a round hole is square, and then, after placing a square peg against the hole, proceed to hammer it in. That’s possible, science does provide the means, but someone has to wield that hammer. Science requires that if you see that the peg doesn’t fit, you say it doesn’t fit. And then perhaps reshape either the hole or the peg, or find another peg or another hole, or whatever is most appropriate.

As a product of fallible humans, our practice and application of science is fallible as well. That’s why it’s very important that we continue to question science, and to test the validity of the conclusions other scientists have reached. But it’s equally important to know where to focus our efforts, to ask the questions and perform the tests which have a chance of producing results, for better or worse. Someone whose hardest climb has been walking up a hill to the nearby shopping centre, wouldn’t immediately set out to prove they can climb Mt. Everest. Likewise, someone like me who doesn’t know much about quantum electrodynamics, shouldn’t immediately set out to show that the LHC will destroy the world (more learned people on the other hand… But others have shown there’s little cause for concern).

So how do I learn more?

You don’t have to go to university and study for years and years, emerge with a PhD, then perform many more years of research before you’ll be qualified to grasp the latest science. Even today anyone with even a basic level of education and access to the Internet has a wealth of knowledge at their fingertips. The basics of science are out there for all.

There’s also Real Science, which makes the latest scientific research accessible to anyone from the age of around 11 up. Real Science presents science news stories based on recent research, including links which elaborate on the concepts the story mentions, but most importantly provides immediate explanations of potentially difficult words in an unobtrusive way, so anyone reading doesn’t have to keep a dictionary on hand (which might not even have a good definition of some of the more ambiguous or distinctive terms). Sometimes I wonder if I should do the same.

In the end, as long as you really want to be a part of this highly connected, ever shrinking, information driven society, having a solid understanding of at least the basics of science is essential, and there’s nothing stopping you from getting it.

Related posts:

• Coturnix on teaching science
• Progress doesn’t have to be dangerous
• Do you really want to know the Truth?
• Science and spirituality are not incompatible
• Belief Colourblindness
• The Resistance to and Misunderstanding of Science

Through this perspective we look at the how social influences and emotions shape our development, with a focus on the way we behave. From very soon after we’re born it becomes clear that we have an identifiable temperament. Most first-time parents probably think their constantly crying baby is going to grow up to be a disagreeable little… Well, thankfully they’re usually wrong.

Temperament has many definitions, though it can be summarised as stable, individual differences in the quality and intensity of emotional reactions. Your temperament forms the base of your personality and is one set of traits which is much more influenced by your genes than by the environment.

Temperament

Temperament is described by (and often measured according to) terms such as sociability, adaptability, persistence, activity level, and reactivity. Many studies have been done on temperament but I have to mention one particular Australian study, funnily enough called the Australian Temperament Project. It’s a long term and on-going study which began in 1982, and is continuing to follow around 2000 people born around that time, aiming to investigate “the influence of an individual’s temperament on his/her emotional and behavioural adjustment.”

That and other studies have produced some significant findings, not the least of which is to highlight just how important it is that parents interact with children in a way which is appropriate to the various aspects of the child’s temperament. There is no “one size fits all” method of raising children. For example, a highly reactive (very sensitive to all kinds of stimulation) and easily distracted child would require a different approach to a highly reactive but persistent child. This seems like common sense, but shows like Super Nanny show us that if it is common sense, some parents don’t have any.

The ATP study showed that highly reactive adolescents who had a low level of supervision had the highest number of incidents of fighting, stealing, disobedience, and other similar unwanted behaviours. And yet adolescents who weren’t reactive who also had little supervision showed very few of those unwanted behaviours.

Ironically it is the ideal balance of interaction between parent (or other carer) and child which allows the child to develop self-regulation, letting them then manage their own responses, stopping them from heading down a path towards poor psychological development and all associated problems such as getting into fights, caving in to peer pressure, or thinking Paris Hilton is a good role model. (Is Paris Hilton a good role model? A clue: no).

Attachment

Attachment, important to parenting and development, can be defined as a close emotional relationship between two people, in which each displays affection towards the other as well as a desire to maintain closeness.

John Bowlby developed a theory of attachment based on observations of children’s reactions to separation from their primary carer (usually a parent, most often their mother). The theory was also inspired by studies of imprinting in baby geese. While not quite the same as imprinting, Bowlby did propose that both adults and babies have complimentary innate behaviours which keep them close to each other, and which help create a stronger, long-lasting attachment. Just like super-glue and fingers.

That attachment lets the child see the parent as a safe haven to return to when something in the world seems threatening. You see this fairly often when a child runs to cling to his mother’s legs. But the parent also acts as secure base, somewhere from which the child can safely explore the world, confident that, if necessary, they can return to their safe haven. So according to Bowlby’s theory, security and comfort are at the core of attachment. Not so much so for super-glue and fingers.

One challenge to Bowlby’s theory was that feeding was the main reason that children formed attachments, and that security and comfort were not as important. This challenge was dismissed by some experiments Harry Harlow performed with rhesus monkeys. He started by building a pair of surrogate mothers for the monkeys; one feeder which was just a wire frame with a milk bottle poking out of it, and one comforter which was a wire frame wrapped in terry cloth. The monkeys all showed a clear preference for the comforter, spending most of their time with it, and always returning to it whenever they felt threatened, or once they had finished exploring or playing.

Mary Ainsworth and her colleagues applied the study of attachment to humans by developing what is called The Strange Situation. It involves a series of observations of a child reactions to the absence or presence of their primary parent, or a stranger. By watching how different children reacted to the same series of situations (carer in the room, carer leaving, carer returning, stranger arriving, etc), Ainsworth came up with three ways of grouping behaviour which highlighted the different degrees of security a child feels, and how that affects their behaviour.

Unfortunately a lack of long term studies doesn’t allow us to come to any strong conclusions of just how childhood attachment influences later life, though studies of orphans have shown that a lack of security during early years leads to psychological problems in later years of childhood, but that when placed in a caring environment, over time those problems mostly disappear.

Onwards

Temperament forms the basis of our reactions to the world during childhood, which influences the styles of attachment we form. Our temperament also demands that others adjust their interaction with us in a way that best teaches us to react in ways which are beneficial. With the right kind of interaction and teaching we’ll be able to develop in a way that sets the stage for positive development in later years, and a psychological make up that will allow us to enjoy our lives.

If you’re interested in finding out more about attachment theory, have a look at this review paper. But bear in mind it is an academic paper.

As you’ve noticed this is just part one of the social-emotional perspective, and I’ve barely touched on behaviour and emotion. Stay tuned.

Related entries:

• Introduction to Human Development
• Introduction to Human Development: Psychoanalytic/Psychosocial Perspective
• Introduction to Human Development: Biological Perspective
• Introduction to Human Development: Social-Emotional Perspective - Part 2
• Introduction to Human Development: Cognitive Perspective
• Introduction to Human Development: Socio-cultural Perspective