Write under natural blue light - you'll be sharper and more creative

Writers seem to be always on the search for ways to improve their work - regular exercise and writing while standing are but two methods many writers use to sharpen their prose.

According to this research, using a blue light also sharpens brain function -  something that any writer can adopt by purchasing bulbs that emit a shorter wave-length blue light similar to natural light.

Individuals exposed to blue wavelength 

lights experienced faster reaction times

Blue light exposure has a lasting effect on brain function

A new study found that blue wavelength light exposure led to subsequent increases in brain activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VLPFC) when participants were engaging in a cognitive task after cessation of light exposure.

The results also showed that a short single exposure to blue light for half an hour is sufficient to produce measurable changes in reaction times and more efficient responses (answered more items correctly per second) during conditions of greater cognitive load after the light exposure had ended. Moreover, these improvements were directly associated with measurable changes in the activation of the prefrontal cortex.

"Previous studies only focused on the effects of light during the period of exposure. Our study adds to this research by showing that these beneficial effects of blue wavelength light may outlast the exposure period by over 40 minutes," said lead author Anna Alkozei, PhD, postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Arizona.

"Blue-enriched white light could be used in a variety of occupational settings where alertness and quick decision making are important, such as pilot cockpits, operation rooms, or military settings. It could also be used in settings where natural sunlight does not exist, such as the International Space Station.

Importantly, our findings suggest that using blue light before having to engage in important cognitive processes may still impact cognitive functioning for over half an hour after the exposure period ended. This may be valuable in a wide range of situations where acute blue light exposure is not a feasible option, such as testing situations."

The research abstract was published recently in an online supplement of the journal Sleep and will be presented Sunday, June 12, 2016 and Wednesday, June 15, 2016 in Denver at SLEEP 2016, the 30th Anniversary Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies LLC (APSS).

"These findings are important as they link the acute behavioral effects of blue light to enhanced activation of key cortical systems involved in cognition and mental control," said William D. S. Killgore, PhD, the senior author and principal investigator of the project.

The study consisted of 35 healthy adults between the ages of 18 and 32 years. The participants were randomized to receive a 30-minute exposure to either blue (active) or amber (placebo) light immediately followed by a working memory task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

Related stories:

• If you're over 60, drink up: Alcohol associated with better memory
• Is it talent? Or hard work? Science has an answer
• Sitting too much stifles creativity, harms your cardiovascular health
• Want to Boost Your Creativity? Research says Meditate with an Open Mind
• What Does Research Reveal on Keeping Your Writing Plain and Simple?
• Write as a hobby? It improves your job performance
• Write standing: It worked for Woolf. Hemingway. Roth. Why not you?

Story Source:  Materials provided by American Academy of Sleep Medicine. "Individuals exposed to blue wavelength lights experienced faster reaction times: Blue light exposure has a lasting effect on brain function." ScienceDaily, 10 June 2016.

Read More

Chivalry is not dead

Chivalry is not dead when it comes to morality

We're more likely to protect women than we are men

We're more likely to sacrifice a man than a woman when it comes to both saving the lives of others and in pursuing our self-interests, a team of psychology researchers has found.  "Our study indicates that we think women's welfare should be preserved over men's," observes Oriel FeldmanHall, a post-doctoral researcher at New York University and the study's lead author.

The research, conducted at Cambridge University's Medical Research Council's Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit and Columbia University, appears in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

In one experiment, study subjects read one of three versions of a "Trolley Dilemma" -- a commonly used technique in psychology studies and akin to the "Lifeboat Question" (i.e., if you could save only three of five passengers in a lifeboat, whom would you choose?). In the trolley scenario, subjects read one of three versions of the dilemma, where each vignette described a man, woman, or gender-neutral bystander on the bridge. The participants were then asked how willing they were to "push the [man/woman/person] onto the path of the oncoming trolley" in order to save five others farther down the track.

The results showed that both female and male subjects were much more likely to push the male bystander or one of unspecified gender than they were the female bystander.

In a second experiment, a new group of subjects was given £20 and told that any money they held at the end of the experiment would be multiplied up to 10-fold, giving them as much as £200. However, there was a catch. In the experiment, the subjects interacted with other individuals -- the researchers' confederates. The subjects were told that if they decided to keep the money, these individuals would be subjected to mild electric shocks. However, if they gave up the money, it would prevent the shocks from being administrated.

As with the first experiment, women were less likely than men to be subjected to shocks, suggesting an aversion to harming females--even when this came at the subjects' own financial expense. However, while both female and male subjects were less likely to shock females than they were males, women in particular were less willing to shock other women.

A third experiment was a survey in which a new set of more than 350 subjects was asked a series of questions relevant to the study's focus -- specifically, the researchers aimed to sort out the thought process that might explain the behaviors exhibited in the first two experiments.

The questions included the following: "On a sinking ship, whom should you save first? Men, women, or no order"; "According to social norms, how morally acceptable is it to harm (men/women) for money?"; "According to social norms, how fair is it to harm (men/women)?"; and, "According to social norms, how well do (men/women) tolerate pain?"

Overall, the answers of both female and male respondents suggested that social norms account for greater harming behavior toward a male than a female target--women are less tolerant to pain, it's unacceptable to harm females for personal gain, and society endorses chivalrous behavior. Furthermore, these perspectives were not linked to emotion--subjects found harming men and women to be equally emotionally aversive.

"There is indeed a gender bias in these matters: society perceives harming women as more morally unacceptable," explains co-author Dean Mobbs, an assistant professor of psychology at Columbia University.

Story Source:  Materials provided by New York University.  O. FeldmanHall, T. Dalgleish, D. Evans, L. Navrady, E. Tedeschi, D. Mobbs. Moral Chivalry: Gender and Harm Sensitivity Predict Costly Altruism. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2016.

Read More

Words May Be All You Need

www.itsnicethat.com

Psychologists have discovered that when two strangers meet and

interact for the first time, the extent to which they develop mutual

understanding depends on how much they talk and ask questions

rather than on non-verbal cues such as gestures or exchanging glances.

Over my career I've read several books on or attended seminars about the importance of non-verbal communication as well as how to read a person's body language.  By implication, this knowledge helps control or model a person's own body language to communicate a wanted affect.

We each use these skills - most likely without thinking about it - in our own day-to-day relationships and are an important tool for investigators and interviewers - who do think about it.

But simply talking, asking and answering questions and listening is also very important.  According to this research, more important than reading or projecting body-language.

So here's a report on the research with a link to the full study in the attribution.

Strangers reach mutual understanding 

through talking and asking questions

. . .not from non-verbal cues

Psychologists at The University of Texas at Arlington have discovered that when two strangers meet and interact for the first time, the extent to which they develop mutual understanding depends on how much they talk and ask questions rather than on non-verbal cues such as gestures or exchanging glances.

The UTA researchers used a specialized linguistic program to measure the extent that two strangers "get in synch" linguistically, providing new insight into the processes that underlie how people come to understand each other when they meet for the first time.

"Beginning in the 1970s, many researchers touted the power of non-verbal communication in creating first impressions and connecting with others," said William Ickes, co-author of the study and UTA Distinguished Professor of Psychology. "Our research indicates that the exchange of words in conversation is all that is really needed for the development of common-ground understanding in initial, unstructured interactions."

Ickes, along with the study's lead author, Vivian Ta, and co-author Meghan Babcock, both UTA psychology doctoral students, recently published their results in the Journal of Language and Social Psychology as "Developing Latent Semantic Similarity in Initial, Unstructured Interactions: The Words May Be All You Need."

The first of their two studies focused on 26 female-female pairs and 20 male-male pairs, all volunteers from UTA undergraduate psychology classes, who were seated in a "waiting room" situation while their initial, unstructured interaction was covertly video- and audiotaped for six minutes while the experimenter left to run an errand before the session. A second study used a much larger sample that contained male-female pairs in addition to male-male and female-female pairs.

A specialized linguistic program was used to analyze the transcripts of their conversations. This program measured each pair's latent semantic similarity, or the the degree to which they used words in the same way during their interactions. The researchers also recorded verbal and non-verbal behaviors seen in the video.

The results clearly showed that the pairs of strangers achieved higher levels of mutual understanding when they exchanged more words with each other and asked more questions.

On the other hand, pairs in which the partners looked at each other more did not achieve significantly greater "semantic similarity" scores than pairs where the partners looked at each other less, and the same was true when comparing pairs in which the partners acknowledged each other more versus less or where they gestured to each other more or less.

"We all know it's important to be able to establish common-ground understanding with the people you're interacting," lead author Vivian Ta said. "Our study shows that the key to this is verbal, not non-verbal."

Psychology Department Chair Perry Fuchs added, "This research on basic human interactions between strangers has implications for all aspects of our social lives and work contexts. It will be interesting to see how the researchers extend this work into the online space and telephone space where so many of our initial interactions are happening now."

The research reflects UTA's increasing focus on Health and the Human Condition within its Strategic Plan 2020: Bold Solutions|Global Impact and the psychology department's growing reputation in psychological sciences, including social psychology and personality.

Related stories:

• Chomsky was right: We have a 'grammar' in our head
• Empathy is key to persuasion. . . and success
• How laughter leads to love
• Understanding your character's sixth-sense for danger: Here's how it works
• The way we, um, talk sways our listeners

Story Source:  Materials provided by University of Texas at Arlington. V. P. Ta, M. J. Babcock, W. Ickes. Developing Latent Semantic Similarity in Initial, Unstructured Interactions: The Words May Be All You Need. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 2016

Read More