The psychology behind a nice cup of tea | Daniel Glaser

As the temperature drops, you might find yourself reaching for a hot cup of coffee or tea, or warm mulled wine or cider more often than usual. But this may not just be because of the obvious benefits of warming your hands around the cup and banishing the cold from your belly.

In fact, studies have shown there’s a psychological element to choosing hot drinks – they can actually make us feel cosier and friendlier. In an experiment, people were asked to rate strangers on how welcoming and trustworthy they thought they were. Holding a warm cup of coffee made them rate the strangers higher on these attributes, while holding a cold drink had the opposite effect.

Those holding hot drinks were also more likely to be generous, and less likely to display behaviour thought of as selfish. This is due to the strong linguistic and metaphorical links created in the brain by repeatedly using the words ‘warm’ or ‘cold’ to describe personalities.

The same applies with sweetness. People who have eaten something sugary are more likely to describe a person positively – as ‘sweet’. Time to put the kettle on, perhaps.

Dr Daniel Glaser is director of Science Gallery at King’s College London

The psychology behind a nice cup of tea | Daniel Glaser

The psychology of luck: why Donald Trump"s superstition helps him win

You might be surprised to learn that around a quarter of Americans are superstitious. When we think about it rationally, the idea of luck may seem silly, but there are a lot of people throughout history who made significant decisions based on superstitious beliefs.

The world’s largest car manufacturer, Toyota, changed its name from “Toyoda” in the 1930s because the number of brush strokes was more auspicious in Japanese culture. Donald Trump, who has been unwavering in his belief in his own ability, describes himself as a “very superstitious person”. He is known to throw a few grains of salt over his shoulder after eating.

It’s hard to understand why large numbers of people would choose to believe in an invisible, unmeasurable force over their own agency. And we know that belief in luck has little basis in reality. So why are so many successful people believers?

“Luck is a slippery subject,” says Maia Young, associate professor at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. It’s a hard thing to prove or disprove.

Related: Conspiracy craze: why 12 million Americans believe alien lizards rule us

The world is not entirely meretricious, which leads many to search for answers as to why some deserving people fail while some undeserving succeed. While there is nothing objectively special about a lucky penny, lucky charms really do seem to work.

“There is no real tangible thing we can call luck,” says Joseph Mazur, mathematician and author of What’s Luck Got to Do with It? “But we create that tangible thing by transferring it to an object.”

And those lucky objects afford us the feeling of a security blanket. Lucky charms create an illusion of control for the person who believes in them, says Stuart Vyse, psychologist and author of Believing in Magic: The Psychology of Superstition.

In studies of lucky charms, people perform better on tasks when they have a lucky charm with them. In one study in 2010, researchers had students putt a golf ball. Half the students were told that the golf ball they were using was lucky. The students who thought they were putting with a lucky ball were better at it than students told they were using a regular ball.

As part of the same study, a group of students who had lucky charms were recruited for a series of memory tasks. Half the students were allowed to keep their lucky charms with them, and the other half had their charms taken away. The students who were allowed to keep their charms performed better.

In a skilled activity, lucky charms boost confidence for people who believe in them, explains Vyse. Even though many people might not know how their lucky charms actually work, it is not a bad idea to carry a charm for added confidence, says Young. It is a “low cost” belief, she explains.

Personality and attitude play into luck as well. In her research, Young finds that optimism is positively associated with luck. If someone believes that they are lucky, and believes that good things will happen, they will try harder at a task, she says.

“When people view themselves as lucky, they are more likely to choose and persist at challenging tasks,” explains Young.

That persistence can have a self-reinforcing effect. The more challenging tasks people take on, the more chance there is they will succeed at some of them, giving them a sense that they are indeed lucky.

Related: Donald Trump: EU was formed ‘to beat the US at making money’

A generally positive attitude towards life also makes it seem like more happy events occur for a person, says Vyse. When someone has a sense that things are going their way in general, it makes for better interactions with other people. Those improved relationships can lead to more opportunities down the line if one of those friends becomes a useful connection for work or a romantic partner.

While it is not rational to put stock in luck, studying the psychology behind the belief can begin to explain why some people end up at the top while others end up at the bottom.

The psychology of luck: why Donald Trump"s superstition helps him win

A Unhappy Day For Organized American Psychology

December 31, 2013 was a unhappy day for organized American psychology. That was the day the American Psychological Association, under the quiet cover of a pending holiday, announced it would not more investigate an ethics complaint towards a psychologist for his participation in a well-dcoumented brutal interrogation at Guantánamo Bay.

The APA letter announcing the decision was published by the Guardian. In response, Frank Summers, the existing President of the Division of Psychoanalysis (aka, Division 39) of the American Psychological Association, wrote a response. It plainly exposes the APA’s ethical failing. With Dr. Summers permission I am posting the full text of his letter here:

—————

February 12, 2014

Lindsay Childress-Beatty, JD, PhD
Director of Adjudication/Deputy Director, Ethics Office
American Psychological Association
750 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242

Stephen Behnke, JD, PhD
Director Ethics Workplace
American Psychological Association
750 1st Street, NE
Washington, DC 20002-4242

Dear Drs. Childress-Beatty and Behnke:

I am writing on behalf of Division 39 to express grave concern over the choice of the Ethics Committee to take no action on the ethics complaint towards Dr. John Leso regardless of his role in directing the torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani.  I note that the letter to Dr. Trudy Bond explaining the choice does not dispute Leso’s involvement in the torture that left al-Qahtani in an incoherent, hallucinatory state that State Division representative Susan Crawford acknowledged was a “life threatening predicament.”  No 1 disputes the fact that Leso consulted on and directed the torture of Mohammed al-Qahtani.  Dr. Leso recommended the torturers in a assortment of techniques, like excessive heat, light, cold, darkness, and loud noise, as properly as sleep deprivation, isolation, forced nudity, prolonged anxiety positions, a variety of forms of humiliation, and other torture methods.  At times Leso was in the space offering directions to those implementing the torture.  The barbaric treatment of al-Qahtani is the most nicely documented situation we have of the US torture system begun under the Bush administration after 9/eleven and the clearest, most indisputable evidence of the participation of a psychologist in torture. As far as is recognized, his mental state has never returned to standard.

The only rationales for the selection had been: (1) Dr. Leso “did not request to grow to be involved with detainee interrogations but was rather informed that he would be in the part of behavioral science consultant only after he arrived in Guantanamo Bay in the summer of 2002,” (two) the military lacked a normal working process for the BSCT function, and the APA did not nevertheless have an articulated policy on interrogations and, (three) there was pressure from the Bush Administration to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” and Leso reportedly spoke out against their deployment.

To excuse Leso on the grounds that he did not know he was going to be concerned in interrogations is equivalent to saying that a psychologist guilty of sexual misconduct is to be absolved if he did not intend to abuse the patient sexually when he started to operate with her.  Nothing in the ethics code allows an ethical principle to be violated with impunity because the intent was not there from the commence.

The 2nd alleged mitigating circumstance is that neither the military nor the APA had presented a policy for interrogations at the level that Leso was torturing al-Qahtani.  But, the principle of “Do No Harm” was in operation given that the beginning of the Ethics Code.  The letter makes no mention of the fact that the APA Ethical Ideas of Psychologists and Code of Conduct starts with Principle A: “Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and consider care to do no harm.  In their professional actions, psychologists look for to safeguard the welfare and rights of these with whom they interact professionally and other impacted persons….” Absent from the Ethics Office letter is any mention of the harm Leso inflicted on Mohammed al-Qahtani.

Moreover, the basic principle of “Do No Harm” is fortified in Normal 3.04: “Psychologists get affordable steps to keep away from harming their clientele/sufferers, students, supervisees, analysis participants, organizational clients, and other people with whom they function, and to minimize harm in which it is foreseeable and unavoidable.”  That principle alone is enough to sanction a psychologist who participates in the torture of anybody, specifically illegally held detainees. To absolve Leso on the grounds that there was no policy on “enhanced interrogations” is equivalent to saying that a psychologist who locks a patient in a closet for two days without foods or water can not be sanctioned since the APA has no “closeting policy.”  How can it be that Leso’s participation in performing egregious, potentially irreparable, harm to al-Qahtani, does not render Leso guilty of violating each Principle A and Regular three.04, fundamental ethics concepts of the code?  Similarly, the truth that Leso allegedly “argued against” Bush Administration pressure to use “enhanced interrogation techniques” in no way mitigates the reality that he tortured al-Qahtani any much more than the truth that a Nuremberg defendant who after opposed the Nazi celebration would be discovered not guilty for crimes committed although a Nazi. The United States did not get critically the defense of “I was just following orders” at Nuremberg and nevertheless that identical excuse would seem to be invoked by the Ethics Office as a justifiable rationale for egregious violations of the Ethics Code in the situation of torture by a psychologist.

The APA has maintained from the inception of this situation that it would investigate any fees that psychologists have been concerned in unethical conduct.  The Leso selection proves with undeniable clarity that is not the situation. The refusal of the APA Ethics Workplace to apply even minimal standards of ethics and human decency to Leso’s participation in torture demonstrates with crystalline clarity that the APA Ethics Workplace has no significant intent of ever sanctioning a psychologist who takes part in torture.

The consequences of the Leso determination are far reaching.  It sends a clear signal to all APA members that they can seek the advice of and direct torture with impunity.  Anyone concerned in violating the APA ethics code by inflicting harm on detainees in unlawful detention camps want not fear action from the APA.  None can take significantly the APA pronouncement that it stands in opposition to psychologists’ involvement in torture now that it is clear the APA refuses to sanction psychologists whose torture participation is indubitable.  The APA speaks with its habits: it permits the use of techniques defined as torture below international convention in clear opposition to its claim to oppose psychologists’ participation in torture.

In addition, by refusing to hold accountable a psychologist who participated in a brutal, destructive torture approach that obviously, dramatically, and starkly violates the most standard rules of APA’s personal ethics code, the Ethics Workplace and Ethics Committee have relinquished their moral authority to pass judgment on ethical malfeasance.  It could hand down selections, but people judgments have tiny ethical force now that the Ethics Office has refused to take action towards egregious torture practices. Provided that refusal to enforce the ethics code in a clear case of torture, what basis could the Ethics Workplace or the Ethics Committee perhaps have for obtaining any psychologist guilty of violating other ethical principles, most of which are not as damaging as torture?  For example, psychologists have been located to have committed ethical transgressions for accepting costly gifts or forming dual relationships with patients.  None would get seriously a judgment of ethical misconduct for this kind of habits by an organization that enables its members to participate in torture with impunity.

Moreover, the APA’s willingness to allow psychologists’ participation in torture is becoming watched by the international psychological neighborhood.   The Leso situation demonstrates to the psychological globe that the American Psychological Association does not have the integrity to be a leader in the planet neighborhood.  The respect the APA as soon as commanded about the globe has been eroding by its facilitation of torture, and the Leso situation hastens that fall in stature.

A Unhappy Day For Organized American Psychology

The Prime Ten Brain Science And Psychology Research Of 2013

fMRI scanner at a neuroscience lab (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This Best 10 record is not meant to be exhaustive (offered how numerous scientific studies are published each 12 months, it in no way could be), but it’s a sturdy sampling of extraordinary work being performed all around the world, moving us closer to solving some very vexing puzzles about brains and behavior.

1. How the Brain Requires Out Its Trash While We Rest

In 2013, layers had been peeled back from two interrelated mysteries: the function of sleep, and how the brain removes its waste byproducts.

Although it is been recognized for some time that the brain does not right use the body’s lymphatic program (our body-broad filtering and waste elimination system) to dump its toxic waste, the mechanism that it does use wasn’t recognized till 2012. The research team that produced this discovery was led by University of Rochester neurosurgeon, Maiken Nedergaard, who dubbed the brain’s waste-removal mechanism the “glymphatic program.”

The glymphatic method relies on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) to flush out neurotoxins by means of pathways separate from the lymphatic technique. Between the harmful toxins that are flushed is beta amyloid, a protein that clumps in the brains of Alzheimer’s sufferers.

In 2013, Nedergaard’s research staff followed up on this discovery by identifying “hidden caves” that open in the brain whilst we rest, enabling cerebrospinal fluid to flush out neurotoxins by means of the spinal column.

The implications of this analysis can’t be overstated:  failing to get sufficient rest isn’t just a negative idea for all of the causes we already know, but over time it could also lead to neurological disorders like Alzheimer’s.  If the study’s findings are correct, our brains need to have sleep to get rid of waste byproducts like amyloid beta that eventually grow to be brain killers.

The research was published in the journal, Science.

two. To Your Brain, Me is We

A 2013 study from University of Virginia researchers supports a discovering that’s been gaining science-fueled momentum in current many years: the human brain is wired to connect with other people so strongly that it experiences what they knowledge as if it is happening to us.

The researchers had participants undergo fMRI brain scans although threatening to give them electrical shocks, or to give shocks to a stranger or a buddy.  Results showed that areas of the brain responsible for threat response – the anterior insula, putamen and supramarginal gyrus – grew to become energetic beneath risk of shock to the self that significantly was expected.

When researchers threatened to shock a stranger, people identical brain areas showed virtually no action. But when they threatened to shock a pal, the brain areas showed exercise virtually identical to that displayed when the participant was threatened.

“The correlation between self and buddy was remarkably related,” mentioned James Coan, a psychology professor in U.Va.’s College of Arts &amp Sciences who co-authored the examine. “The obtaining shows the brain’s impressive capability to model self to other people that individuals near to us become a component of ourselves, and that is not just metaphor or poetry, it’s extremely genuine.”

The study was published in the journal, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

three. Your Brain Sees Even When You Really don’t

A 2013 study published in The Journal of Neuroscience suggests that the brain can “see” a person else’s actions even when the capacity to visually see has been destroyed.

Cortical blindness refers to the loss of vision that happens when the main visual cortex no longer functions, usually as the end result of damage. There’s no longer an ability to visually perceive the globe in the sense with which we’re most acquainted (even even though the eyes nevertheless technically operate), but that does not necessarily mean the brain no longer sees.

In this research a patient with full cortical blindness could even now react to one more person’s gaze. Whilst in an fMRI machine, the patient was exposed to gazes directed at him and gazes directed away from him. On the face of it, neither must matter. His visual cortex couldn’t perceive any kind of gaze. But the brain scan indicated that yet another element of his brain undoubtedly could.

The patient’s amygdala, the brain spot related with figuring out regardless of whether external stimuli is a risk, showed a distinctly distinct activation pattern when the gaze was directed at the patient than when directed away from him.

The Prime Ten Brain Science And Psychology Research Of 2013