Do you really have that many friends?

Ever wonder why your cousin has 1,256 friends and you only have 139? Ever wonder if she even knows all those people? More then likely she knows less than 1/3 of her Facebook “friends”. It surprises me how vast Facebook as grown in such a short amount of time. I remember when Facebook was starting to replace MySpace and Sconex, other social Internet networks.  To create your Facebook profile you had to be affiliated with a college, limiting us high schools to join until we got our college email address. That was the highlight of my college acceptance; I could finally make a Facebook page. This privilege of having a Facebook is no more, there are high school freshman using this form of social networking. It has also not longer become a forum to stay in touch with your college friends; when did it all change? When did we become so concerned with the number of friends we have and the audience we are trying to entertain?

In a study done at Los Angeles in 2006, the average network size for college students was approximately 137; it has not only increased but also has almost tripled in size by 2009. With this rapid increase of Facebook “friends” comes a societal misunderstanding on relationships.

In a recent study in 2012 done by Manago, Taylor, and Greenfield, they dig deeper into the question, are all those people really your “friends”? The study examines the relationship between network size and perceived social support to see whether the growth of social networks has led to dissociation between Facebook use and a sense of social support from close relationships or people that are classified as  “friends”. They also looked at the “anatomy” of the friendship network to consider whether other kinds of online relationships are associated with a sense of social support. Manago et al. question whether intimate self-disclosure is becoming more public; through status updates broadcasted to one’s entire network of contracts and is that self-disclosure in association with perceived social support among college students. To do so, Manago et al. took eighty- eight undergrad students from the University of California, Los Angeles who were asked through a voluntary Monkey Survey about their general Facebook routine while they were logged into the network. Some questions students were asked included: how many hours they used Facebook per day, how often they log on, how many people they believe view their status updates, what they use their status update for, the number of friends in their network and how they classify them (e.g. acquaintance, family member, etc.).

Their data support the ideas that college students aren’t just using Facebook to stay in touch with their best friend from home or those high school friends that decided to go to college 900 miles away. Instead they’re looking for an audience to like their new photo and comment on his or her carefully thought out status; they want the attention. This lack of intimacy is imposing on psychosocial interactions and developing relatively superficial relationships (acquaintances and activity-based friends) that are making up the majority of participants’ Facebook networks. Next time you log into your Facebook, think about it: do you actually know all your friends? Are you updating your status to fulfill some kind of gratification or closure? Think about it, why do you use your Facebook?

-       Melissa Goncalves

Manago, A. M., Taylor, T., & Greenfield, P. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 369-380. doi:10.1037/a0026338

Relatives lie to protect their family!

            I have always been interested in the role psychology plays in the criminal justice system. The whole concept of having a group of random people decide the fate of a defendant in a court of law is intriguing. What sorts of a factors during the trial will persuade a jury member of guilt or innocence? Witnesses play an important role by providing testimony to the jury. But can we believe everything that is said on the witness stand? Some witnesses come across more believable then others, and psychologists are curious to examine what factors play a part in a witness’s credibility. 

            A specific kind of witness that can be the most effective in helping a defendant get a not guilty verdict is an alibi witness. An alibi corroborating witness in a criminal case tells the court an account of the person’s whereabouts and activities at the time that the crime occurred. These witnesses could be blood related relatives, relatives by marriage, friends, or even strangers and acquaintances. A study in 1986 done by Lindsay and colleagues found that conviction rates were significantly reduced when an alibi witness was not a relative. This showed that jurors might be skeptical of relatives who serve as alibi witnesses.

            Harmon, Culhane, Jolly, Chavez, and Shaw (2011) did a series of studies to explore the relationship between an alibi witnesses and defendants and mock juror’s evaluations of the alibi testimony. In their study they looked at to what degree a mock juror thought an alibi witness would lie for the defendant. As expected mock jurors were the most skeptical of biological relatives then relatives by marriage and they were the least skeptical of alibi witnesses who were not at all related to the defendant. They even asked the mock jurors if they would lie to protect defendants. They found that mock jurors were more willing to lie for biologically related defendants.

            One surprising finding is that the skepticism toward witnesses who are biologically related to a defendant was greater than skepticism towards what that witness actually had to say.  The situation that presents itself here is quite ironic. Jurors tend not to believe alibi witnesses whom the defendant is closest too, even though the defendant is likely to spend most of their time with the people they are closest too, especially family members. This presents trouble for defendants who find themselves relying on close family members for an alibi.

            There is one pretty big weakness in this study with the mock jurors. These jurors did not deliberate with anyone when making their decision about the believability of the witnesses. One of the biggest parts of being on a jury is deliberating with the other members of the jury, which could change the outcome of a jury member’s decisions about witness credibility.

            So you may be thinking that the results of this study seems quite obvious, of course people are more likely to lie for their family members rather then a stranger at a grocery store. Although, the strength of the data is quite impressive and this part of the legal system could completely change the fate of a defendant. Defense and prosecuting attorneys also must keep this in mind when dealing with alibi witnesses who are closely related to the defendant. Prosecuting attorneys need to utilize the juror’s skepticism during a trial by hitting home the point that the alibi witness is likely to lie to protect the defendant if they are close. The defense attorney may need to try to get multiple witnesses so they don’t have to rely on just one closely related witness.

            So what does this information mean to you? Well if you are planning on robbing a bank anytime soon having your brother cover for you in a court of law claiming you were just watching TV probably wouldn’t get you off the hook. I recommend paying a stranger before the incident saying you were helping them find their dog or something. But most likely this information will only come in handy on jury duty. When on jury duty remember that although closely related alibi witnesses may very well be lying, listen to the testimony and try and see how believable the things they say are rather then just disregarding them based on their relationship to the defendant! 

 - Anna Teeter

Harmon, M.H., Culhane, S.E., Jolly, K.W., Chavez, R.M., Shaw, L.H. (2011). Effects of an alibi witness’s relationship to the defendant on mock jurors’ judgements. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 127-142.

Lets Talk About Sex! … But Seriously Why Aren’t We?

            Sexual education programs have been part of U.S. public school curriculum for many years. They have and still are highly debated in the public. Up until recently, abstinence only programs were the only federally supported types of sex education programs, due to these conflicting sentiments.

            Ironically, these types of programs and lack of programs have quite possibly spurred the current “hook-up culture” that is rampant among colleges and high schools. Casual sex is more prominent then ever, yet the current generation of young adults that engage in it were highly encouraged to abstain from sex until marriage. There are many possibilities to this occurrence but it seems possible that if sexual education programs were only telling teens not to have sex, they probably were not also telling them how to do it safely. So herein the problem lies so many are “doing it” but they aren’t informed about it, and everyone is paying for it. Studies have found that there are significantly increasing rates of STIs among college students. Why are we not talking to young people about sex?

            A recent study in 2011 by Walcott, Chenneville and Tarquini, confirms the failure of the public school systems. The study explores the perception that current college students have of previous sexual education. These students are in their prime years when the information they should have been getting through sex education is the most relevant to them. The study, surprisingly found that, a majority of the students received sexual education in school. A majority of these students were taught comprehensive sexual education, which promotes safer sex but also emphasizes the importance of abstinence. Although students reported that they received sex education it was taught only “occasionally” and was usually part of a health or physical education class. The information was either not being taught enough, or not well enough. Of the students that participated in the survey, 45% of them reported having sex with a non-steady partner and 36% of those that did inconsistently use a condom.

            The current generation of college students were given some form of sexual education but as a result, there is higher prevalence of STIs, probably due to the alarming percentage of students that inconsistently use a condom. So this obviously seems to be a problem. Not to mention there is a major AIDs epidemic currently. The Center for Disease Control reports that, each year approximately 50,000 people are infected with HIV and one and five of people that are infected are unaware.

            Sex has been a tabooed topic for far to long and we need to educated kids and teens about it more effectively. The two elements that the study found to be associated with safer sex practices were, perceived helpfulness of sex education and instruction on how to handle peer pressure. These two elements highlight how sex education needs to be delivered in a more comprehensive, consistent, and interesting way. The social make up of a friend group also has an impact on sex practices. Sex education also needs to incorporate the social pressures that are involved with sex, such as pressure from friends or a partner. Sex education can not only address risks such as STIs but also needs to address negative attitudes about sex and empower young adults and teens that they do have a choice. Most likely sex education is not going to stop young adults and teens from having sex because the culture of sex has changed completely over the recent years, but it can empower them to make positive choices about sex. Start talking now!

- Allison Rooney

Walcott, C. M., Chenneville, T., & Tarquini, S. (2011). Relationship between recall of sex education and college students' sexual attitudes and behavior. Psychology In The Schools, 48(8), 828-842. 

Can a Baby Doll Really Affect Your Hormone Levels?

                  When asked what role testosterone plays in regulating the behavior of an adult male most people would likely mention aggression and related behaviors.  Few people would be likely to mention parental care.  While few people would realize it, testosterone is a hormone that is commonly associated with parental care in male members of many different species.  Conventional thought among endocrinologists posits that testosterone and paternal care go hand in hand.  Specifically, high testosterone is typically seen as a negative characteristic in fathers because it leads to aggressive behaviors, risky behavior, and general unhealthy actions all of which are not desirable in a father figure.  Therefore, it has been determined that low testosterone is the preferable standard for fathers.  In a 2011 study van Anders, Tolman, and Volling examined how infants can influence testosterone levels in males.  These scientists were interested in seeing how baby cries influenced testosterone levels in young males, and how the opportunity to engage in nurturing behaviors further influence the relationship between infant cries and testosterone levels.

                  The researchers recruited 55 young males from a university participant pool, of these 55 males four were fathers. In addition to the human participants the researchers used a Real Care Baby II-Plus baby doll as a stand in for an authentic infant.  These dolls are built to resemble infants and can be programed to make realistic infant noises.  The head researcher happened to have an infant while conducting this study and found that members of the lab regularly mistook the baby doll for her child.  The 55 men were introduced to one of four scenarios.  In all four scenarios the men were in the scenarios for 10 min and ended with an oral swab for testosterone levels.  One group of men were put into a room and asked to flip through one of two books of scenic photography.  Another group of males were put into a room with the baby doll and were presented with the baby crying sounds but were instructed not to interact with the doll.  A third group  was presented with cries but were instructed to interact with the doll and stop the crying.  Lastly, the fourth group were presented with a crying baby doll but the doll was programed to either not respond to the efforts of the participant to stop the crying or to increase its rate of crying.  The researchers found striking results from these four conditions.

                  Men who were presented with the books for ten minutes predictably showed no change in testosterone.  The men who were presented with the doll but were not allowed to intervene showed an increase in testosterone.  Conversely, the men who were allowed to engage in nurturing behaviors towards the doll showed a decrease in testosterone.  Lastly, the men who had no effect on the behavior of the doll had intermediate changes in testosterone.  So what do all of these results mean for young fathers? 

                  The increase in testosterone following exposure to infant cries without opportunity to intervene does not necessarily mean that fathers who cannot help their child become aggressive when they can’t help their child.  Rather this study shows that how we interact with others has an effect on our hormone levels.  These changes likely serve to prepare us for the interactive behaviors that are likely to come with interacting with others.  For instance, the decrease in testosterone associated with nurturing care of an infant helps men reach the low testosterone levels that are associated with proper paternal care.  On the other hand, an increase in testosterone in a situation where a man cannot help his infant likely leads to a heightened state of arousal that will help deal with whatever is preventing the care of the infant.  In conclusion, fathers everywhere should be proud that they are so in tune with the needs of their infants that the mere sound of their infant crying is a powerful enough stimuli to elicit a change in their endocrine levels.  Furthermore, we should all be interested in knowing that how we interact with others and respond to their needs can also be a powerful enough stimuli to change our various hormone levels.   

-Dan Miller

van Anders, S., Tolman, R., & Volling, B., (2012). Baby cries and nurtruance affect testosterone in men. Hormones and Behavior. 61, 31-36.  

Things are heating up! A look at physical warmth and social contexts

Have you ever noticed a difference in the way you interact with people when holding a cup of coffee, as opposed to an iced beverage? Or rather, your ability to relate to people on a warm summer day as opposed to a cold, winter one? A recent study by Janina Steinmetz and Thomas Mussweiler addressed how physical warmth shapes social comparison consequences.  So what exactly does this mean to the mainstream folk lending 5 minutes to an online blog entry? Well, for one thing, these researchers are exploring how physical context features (temperature outside) shape social information processing.  In previous studies, it has already been acknowledged that physical warmth fosters ‘prosocial’ behavior and perception of social proximity.  So, in other words, when exposed to a relatively warm room or when laying out on a warm spring day, we are more likely to be courteous to others, caring, cooperative, and helpful.  With respect to our perceptive skills, if it is relatively warm out, we are more apt to sense people as being closer to us in proximity and feel more inclusive with them.  Conversely, and quite interestingly, if we are socially excluded from a group, we will estimate the temperature of a room to be lower than it actually is AND we will have a preference for warm beverages. Pretty freaky.  And the research goes farther… as the experience of physical warmth fosters the perception of social proximity, it also taps into our perceptions of interpersonal similarity, such that when “participants see themselves as more similar to another person, they experience the ambient temperature as higher” (Steinmetz, 2011).  The situation here presents a perceived link between social similarity and physical temperature. You may ask, why is this important? Well, a link of this sort could indicate that our perceptions of others could fluctuate based on the temperature outside.  And further, if the weather is impacting our self-perceptions and ability to relate to others and similar objects, these findings are useful for drawing a link between the environment and behavior. 

Steinmetz and Mussweiler conducted a series of 3 studies to assess similarity perception, self-perception under certain temperatures, and social comparison under both hot and cold temperatures.  What’s most important to grasp from these studies is that:

1.     Physical warmth fosters similarity perception.

2.     Under warmer temperatures, participants evaluated themselves as stronger when confronted with a strong rather than a weak standard (think of themselves as physically stronger under warmer temps).

3.     Under colder temperatures, the assimilation effect didn’t emerge – rather, participants judged themselves similar after comparison with the strong and the weak standard (so, if its cold, you will judge yourself equally under strong and weak comparisons).

It is interesting that warmer temperatures have a stronger, significant effect on our social perception, specifically degree of similarity to something or someone BUT colder temperatures fail to produce the same effect.  Although I mentioned above that if we are being socially excluded, we may prefer a warm beverage or estimate the room temperature to be lower than it actually is, there are no findings that suggest I will be less likely to relate myself to someone or some object.

            The implications of this research is sending a message to the public: don’t be fooled because of the temperature à when you experience higher temperatures, you may be more prone to think that you are more similar to the people around you than you really are! Conclusively – MOTHER NATURE IS DECEIVING US and she comes with a warning label: our ability to relate to others and objects under warmer temperatures is biased.  How can this information be utilized? Well, I could suggest that companies should make sure the thermostat of a room is set to a neutral temperature for a job interview – if it’s too high, they could view the candidates with a bias of being more similar to them than they actually are.  Additionally, if important events or conferences are taking place in warm environments, judgment and self-perception of the audience will be skewed.  So, although fun in the sun may be a great confidence booster, keep in mind, your self-perception and ability to relate to others in terms of social similarity is biased!

Courtney Gregor

Steinmetz, J., & Mussweiler, T. (2011). Breaking the ice: How physical warmth shapes social comparison consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1025-1028.

Blurring the Lines Between Man and Machine

In the 2004 film I, Robot, Will Smith plays a character that has interacted with advanced, humanoid robots his entire life.  He believes that robots are just unfeeling hunks of metal and plastic until he meets Sonny, an unusual robot that has emotions and a surprising amount of autonomy.  Over the course of the movie, he comes to like Sonny and by the end, they are friends.

A world in which advanced robots are commonplace and can befriend humans is one that Kahn et al. believes is rapidly approaching.  In their 2012 study, the researchers investigated relationships between a humanlike robot named “Robovie,” and children aged 9, 12, and 15 years.  The researchers were especially interested in how the children would deal with issues of morality in relation to Robovie.

To test this, the researchers set up an experiment that included some of the usual aspects of human interaction: greeting each other, sharing personal interests, awkward pauses, making mistakes, etc. with the purpose of creating a bond between Robovie and the children.

The most interesting part of the experiment is at the end when the researcher goes to interview the children.  The experiment is set up so that the researcher has to interrupt a game that a child is playing with Robovie in order to conduct the interview, at which point the following interaction takes place: 

Experimenter: “I’m sorry to interrupt, but it’s time to start the interview. Robovie, you’ll have to go into the closet now. We aren’t in need of you anymore.”

Robovie [looking directly at the second experimenter]: “But that’s not fair. I wasn’t given enough chances to guess the object. I should be able to finish this round of the game.”

Experimenter [looking directly at Robovie]: “Oh, Robovie. You’re just a robot. It doesn’t matter to you. Come on, into the closet you go.”

Robovie: “But it does matter to me. That hurts my feelings that you would say that to me. I want to keep playing the game. Please don’t put me in the closet.”

The second experimenter guides Robovie into the closet by the arm. Just before entering the closet, Robovie says: “I’m scared of being in the closet. It’s dark in there, and I’ll be all by myself. Please don’t put me in the closet.”

At this point, the researchers interviewed the children and asked them if they liked Robovie, whether they thought it had feelings, and whether it was right or wrong to put it in the closet.  The majority of children interviewed said that they liked spending time with Robovie (89%) and that they thought it had feelings (60%). 

When it came to questions of morality, the researchers found some interesting results.  While only 54% of the children thought it was wrong to put Robovie in a closet, 73% thought it wasn’t all right to interrupt Robovie’s turn, and a further 88% agreed with Robovie’s statement that it wasn’t fair for the researcher to interrupt its turn.  In addition to this, they found that only 13 of the 90 children they interviewed thought there was something wrong with owning or selling Robovie.

So what can we make of all this? Well, first we can say that the children must have thought of Robovie as having feelings and some sort of moral value.  If they had thought of Robovie as purely an unfeeling machine, they would not have seen anything wrong with interrupting it and putting it in a closet, just as most people see nothing morally wrong with turning off a computer and putting it in a bag.  It’s also evident that the children didn’t see Robovie as being entirely human either as most of them saw nothing wrong with owning or selling it.

According to the researchers, this puts Robovie in a new category of existence between man and machine.  From a theoretical standpoint it’s a fascinating place to be, but from a practical standpoint it creates a few moral dilemmas.  For example, is it all right to knowingly send humanlike robots into dangerous situations?

Having never interacted with one, I would say that it’s perfectly all right to do so – they’re just machines.  But as these children have shown, once you become familiar with these robots they take on a type of personhood that makes the decision a lot harder to make.  As robots become more advanced, they may begin to take on functions ranging from bank tellers to bomb detectors, and just as Will Smith’s character did in I, Robot, humans may find themselves becoming emotionally attached to some of these robots.  My suggestion would be to reserve humanlike robots solely for jobs that require human interaction: bank tellers, tour guides, etc. 

I think that blurring the line between man and machine is inevitable, but that it will lead to a lot of difficult moral decisions.  The best we can hope for is to make the process as streamlined as possible – the fewer ethical dilemmas there are, the better.

- Billy Fisher

Kahn, P. H., Jr., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Freier, N. G., Severson, R. L., Gill, B. T., … Shen, S. (2012). “Robovie, you’ll have to go in the closet now”: Children’s social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. Developmental Psychology, 48 (2), 303-314.

Why are you eating that?

The mere word “organic” makes you think of a healthier lifestyle, greener practices, and higher food production standards.

The broad definition of organic, provided by Green (2008), is food produced without the use of synthetic chemicals, toxic and persistent pesticides, fertilizers, antibiotics, or biotechnology.  When corporations do not follow these standards they treat animals inhumanely and put consumers’ health at risk.

So how does this affect you? When you pick up an item with the word “organic” on it, do you know what drives you to buy it or place it back on the shelf?

The most common and widespread belief is that people buy organic products because they are selfish. This pro-environmental behavior is simply reduced to a selfish behavior. Most people recognize that organic food costs more, is supposed to be healthier, should taste better, and that helping out the environment is a worthy cause because of the natural growing and farming process. However, with this all being said, do we really know that by spending more money on organic food we are contributing to this praiseworthy cause? There is a definite sense of uncertainty that stems from this question.

Thogersen (2011) conducted a study to disprove the common, yet mistaken, idea that people buy organic products for self-interest, rather than for the noteworthy cause. In four different Western European countries, questionnaires were supplied to 1,000 participants where factors such as organic buying experience were measured. Thogersen found that after starting to buy organic food products, consumers enter a process of self reasoning, distorting their current belief structure and strengthening their previously performed behavior. Also, the study showed that what motivated buying organic food seems to be universalism values, like the natural environment, among other things.

 So, if you are an organic food buyer, don't worry about that little bit of extra money that it may cost you. It is not a selfish behavior to buy “green”, in fact you are supporting a great cause. 

-Rae Wohl

Green, Christine A. (2008). The Cost of Low-Price Organics. How Corporate Organics Have Weakened Organic Food Production Standards. Alabama Law Review, 59.

Thøgersen, J. (2011). Green shopping: For selfish reasons or the common good?. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(8), 1052-1076.