The Big Questions

Sean Hannity, Media lies, and My Own Bias

Nathan Heflick — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:45:41 +0000

Really Sean Hannity? Your recent reporting (see here: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911100063) is such a blatant lie.

"The blind spot" bias refers to how people of all walks of life are "blind" to their own biases. In other words, we see ourselves as less biased than others, and those very others see themselves as less biased than us (see work by Emily Pronin). But even with that fresh in my mind, I cannot help but be appalled at some media coverage.

A friend of mine posted a clip this morning of Sean Hannity from Fox News. Hannity and his colleagues were trying to argue that there is outrage over the health care reform bill. Ok, fair enough. I am sure some people are outraged. But, the clip demonstrates pretty clearly that Hannity (or someone behind the scenes) used an old crowd (from a different rally) to exaggerate how many people were at a rally opposing the reform bill. By using the wrong (larger) crowd in his story, he/Fox were obviously decieving the public.

I clearly am not the biggest fan of Fox News, and I never will be. And the clip was from The Daily Show with Jon Stewert and yes, he certainly isn't a big fan either. But I really think any reasonable person should be pretty much disgusted (if they aren't apathetic) by this deceit. I would hope even ardent Hannity lovers would be too. And I sure hope I would be if someone who is more typical of my views did something just as outrageous.

Which brings me back to the blind spot bias. Sure, we all think we are less biased than others, but some people must actually be less biased than others. And, well aware of my own biases (or at least trying to be), I cannot help but think that most democrats make a bigger attempt at seeing the other side than most republicans (in the US).

BUT, are democrats less biased, or is that my own bias talking? On some level, I can't help but think democrats are less biased. I think that sort of proves the power of the blind spot bias. Despite knowing it probably is bias, I still am so inclined to think it isn't my bias concluding that.

But I sure hope no one is so blind to their own biases that they do not find Hannity's ploy repulsive.

See here for clip: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200911100063

(thanks to Andrew Caswell for pointing this clip out to me)

Fort Hood: The Value of American Life

Nathan Heflick — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:19:55 +0000

Why is it that 100,000 innocent people can die in a US lead war and few Americans bat an eye, but 13 Americans die and Americans are up in arms?

In no way am I minimizing what happened yesterday. It is a horrific tragedy and my deepest sympathies are with the families and friends of the victims. I just want to re-iterate this to make it clear: What happened yesterday was horrible. It is the greatest stain on humanity that people do such horrific things to each other.

But I also feel sympathy for the 100,000 plus innocents that have been killed in the US-Iraqi war. The suffering that has been inflicted on their families is just as horrific as that suffered by many Americans yesterday. I find it incredibly interesting, and disturbing, that more people don't similarly feel the suffering of people who happen to be born in a different country.

We are all people after all; we all suffer just the same when tragedy strikes. And I know this blog will upset a lot of people, but that is not the intention. The point is that all countries do this; The US is just one example that I have experienced firsthand.

I sincerely hope that all this violence will end in the future. I am skeptical, but perhaps the first step is to recognize that what happened yesterday is truly tragic. But it isn't tragic because Americans died. It is tragic because people died. People just like you and me.

That is the outrage I feel.

Writing about Death can Increase Happiness

Nathan Heflick — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:56:43 +0000

Let's be frank: death pretty much sucks. I do not want to die, and I am pretty sure you do not either. And when someone we love dies, well, tragic does not do the pain justice. But quite interestingly (if I do say so myself), some colleagues and I just found that writing about death for minutes a day for one week can reduce depression.

Before I go on, let me make it clear what I am not saying.

*I am in no way endorsing using writing about death over time as a means of treating clinical depression* All of our participants were college students, and most were women. Further, none scored at a clinically depressed level when the study began. Basically, I have no idea what would happen if clinically depressed people were the participants, and research hasn't tested that. But it is very possible that it could actually make things much worse.

For this study, 133 participants were told they would have to write about a topic each day for approximately 5 minutes a day, or to just reply to an email we sent them. In truth, they were randomly divided into 3 groups. One-third of them would be writing about death for six days, one-third would be writing about uncertainty and one-third would just be replying to our emails. Then, on the 7th day, they were all again randomly assigned (unknowingly to them) to write about death or uncertainty.

Basically, participants who wrote about death repeatedly (for the six days) had the least level of depression on day 7. This effect occured because repeatedly writing about death also shifted people's motivations from such things as fame and wealth, to such things as personal growth and family. (in psychology/stats jargon, the effect of repeated death writing on reduced depression was mediated by the increase in intrinsic motivation)

Interestingly though, there was also an effect that one time writing about death had the opposite effect; participants who did not write about death for six days, who were reminded of death on day 7 had the highest levels of depressive symptoms.

In sum, writing about death over and over altered what people found important to them, and this made them less depressed. But at any given time, writing about death causes an increase in depression, most likely that is short term.

(note: depression was measured using only the items/symptoms on the Beck Depression Inventory that have been found to relate most solely to depression. So items such, as "reduced sexual desire" and "reduced energy" were not included).

Disagreeing with My Politics Is an Error

Nathan Heflick — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:00:05 +0000

Do our brains interpret our values and beliefs as facts (objective truths)?

Decades ago, sociologists Berger and Luckmann argued just this. From their perspective, successful socialization occurs when an individual internalizes a given group or culture's beliefs/norms/values to such an extent that these are "reality" for them.

So in other words, just as this Pepsi can I am drinking from is blue and red, so to, for me, was George W. Bush a lousy president (and of course, if you believe the opposite, it is a fact for you that he wasn't). I must confess that even after pondering these ideas for so long, I still get queasy thinking that "George W. Bush was a lousy president" is just an opinion. I cannot shake it. It is like there is an automatic impulse that I have to fight to realize it isn't a fact.

Recent research explored this sort of automatic impulse. Hooked up to an FMRi machine, participants listened to arguments that were against their political beliefs. The results were quite interesting. Such messages caused activation in the brain region that is responsible for error detection. So in other words (and yes, I am grossly simplifying here), it was as if people's brain's were indicating "error, error, error; this message does not compute."

This is consistent with research by Emily Pronin (psychology professor at Princeton University), which shows that people of all beliefs see their own beliefs as LESS biased than others. In other words, republicans see themselves as less biased, and so do democrats, and for that matter, so do mailman, corporate CEO's and homeless people.

I think this goes a long way in explaining the depth and extent to which people defend their beliefs. Perhaps, Berger and Luckmann are right; we do live, in some sense, in alternative forms of reality. Sure, we all know a rock won't bite us and 2 + 2 = 4, but what I "know" (George W. Bush was lousy) is not what many Republicans "know" (George W. Bush was a good president).

I will leave with another example I think sums this up well. When I teach cultural psychology, I have said statements like, "this tribe believes that the world came from a coconut shell (class laughs). That is absurd right (class agrees). We all know God created the world in 7 days and then took a well-deserved nap. It was hard work making women out of a man's rib."

The gist is that most of the class doesn't realize I am making a joke or being sarcastic. They just nod and agree.

(Note: I am about to begin research to test if we percieve, at a very basic level, our values as more facts than opinions. I will keep you all posted).

Disputing Science

Nathan Heflick — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:58:38 +0000

How can people deny the findings of scientific studies, without any proof to back their statements up?

Ever since I have been in graduate school, I have been shocked at people's reactions to experimental studies. Personally, I just do not see how a study that it pretty close to objective evidence can make people so irrate. From my end, I am just a researcher trying to understand a given social-psychological phenomenon. I have no real agenda beyond curiousity.

Two areas of my work seem to elicit the most anger from people who have read about my work online. The first are my studies that have anything to do with political topics, and the second are experiments where spiritual variables are tested. I could go into why those topics seems to be such "red-alarm" issues, but I am sure you all do not need me to do that.

So I suppose that leaves me with my final point. It is possible to refute a study based on faulty methods or outright lies from the researcher, or even to reason that you could see a slightly different version of the same study turning out differently. But unless that happens and is accurate, statements like, "this alleged study" are pretty silly to make (no matter how many media members like to say it). And further, results of an experiment cannot be "disproven" (as I have heard said) just by someone who you happen to think highly of saying, "I disagree with this study." Just because someone disagress (let alone because someone they value disagress) is not good enough to refute a finding that has been replicated many times. And simple disagreement does not, in itself, invalidate the results. What was found was found.

In other words, if I do a scientific experiment and someone like, oh I do not know, Bill O' Reilly, says "I do not agree with you" without any (empirical) proof or even reasoning on his end, then this does not invalidate scientific results. As I said, what was found was found. And even if he did have proof that runs counter the study, it is still very likely both of our studies (or even ideas) are valid, but we measured (or are thinking about even) slightly different things, or slightly different conditions.

Why and How Afterlife Belief Occurs

Nathan Heflick — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 16:14:03 +0000

I know there is a Walgreen's at the corner; I went there to get some toothpaste and a gift card just minutes ago, and I enjoyed a rather tasty strawberry milk from there as well. But when it comes to belief in God, or life after death, how do people maintain such beliefs? It isn't as if people can go to the "Heaven on the corner" to validate this belief.

Before starting, let me make it clear that I am in no way criticizing these beliefs, or arguing that they are silly or foolish. I merely am stating that, compared to things we can observe and see and test scientifically, afterlife belief belief cannot be obtained or arrived at.

Being raised in a very much religious home, I have been interested in the maintanence and development of afterlife belief for some time. So when I became a PhD student in experimental social psychology, I naturally wanted to see if I could get at some of the "roots" of this belief, and specifically, what causes and maintains it. With help from my colleagues (Joshua Hart of Union College, and Jamie Goldenberg of The University of South Florida), several studies were designed to test two factors: body-self dualism and death salience.

The basic reasoning was that belief in life after death requires the ability to percieve part of the self (e.g., the soul) as capable of existing independently of the physical body. Thus, priming the physical body should reduce afterlife belief (even if only minimally) by making people feel like more of a body. We also reasoned that death salience should increase the desire to believe in life after death, but should not necessarily increase actual afterlife belief.

In 2 studies, we found that death salience leads spiritual individuals to see themselves as more "soul-like" by distancing their self-worth from their body. For non-spiritual individuals, this did not occur, and they even clung more to their bodies. In 2 follow up studies, we found that death salience reduced afterlife belief when people completed materials while getting a foot massage or first wrote about their physical experiences and attributes (hence priming a lack of dualism). Interestingly, desire to believe in life after death increased when death was salient even when dualism was hindered.

In sum, it appears that death drives most people to WANT to believe in life after death, but, to the extent they cannot distance their sense of self from their physical body, ACTUAL belief can be hindered.Ironically, death salience can actually hurt actual belief in these cases, all the while increasing DESIRE to believe.

(note: This is not saying that there are not a whole host of other reasons that increase or decrease belief. We do not argue that suddenly a strong believer will stop believing because of our experiments. They will simply score, on average, slightly lower in their certainty. Likewise, an atheist will not all of a sudden believe wholly when primed with dualism and death. But they will, on average, believe that it is slightly more possible. Further, we have no data on if our effects impact belief beyond the 30 or so minutes the participant completes the study).

But we have a Black President...

Nathan Heflick — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:18:46 +0000

Racism is over in The United States! Woo-hoo, go tell it on the mountains, over the hills and everywhere. We have a Black president (cue the fireworks and bald eagles soaring over snow covered mountain tops and pictures of smiling children)!

Well, this is what a seemingly endless supply of internet forum posters and bloggers (none from this site I deeply hope!) would have you believe.

There are at least two reasons why this reasoning is so entirely wrong. 1). Just because the majority of people voted for a person doesn't mean that any individual person isn't racist. The majority of people in The United States think gay marriage is wrong, that doesn't mean I do! 2). Even among those who voted for Obama, people may have been more willing (in some cases) to vote for him if he was White.

(and yes, I am sure his race helped him in some cases, but that isn't the point of this blog).

Not all people saying this lack intelligence, however (as hard as that is too believe). They are just deeply motivated to maintain the status quo and belief in a just world. Countless studies show that people (conservatives especially) are highly motivated to see the world as fair, orderly and just.

So in other words, people are so motivated to see the world as fair and just that it greatly clouds their otherwise fine ability to reason and think. This leaves us with people saying such stupid things as "racism is over, we have a Black President."

see also, Scott Barry Kaufman's PT blog on this topic:http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/beautiful-minds/200902/obama-is-president-so-racism-is-over-right

Appearance Focus Negatively Impacts Females (but not males).

Nathan Heflick — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:12:06 +0000

What effect does appearance focus have on men and women in their everyday life? Could it have contributed to Barack Obama's victory?

Our lab (Dr. Jamie Goldenberg, and her two graduate students, Douglas Cooper and myself) recently completed three studies in which we had university students either focus on a woman's or a man's apperance, or on their personality. Study 1 found that Michelle Obama was rated as less warm (trustworthy and sincere) and competent (capable, intelligent) when focus was on her appearance. In contrast, Barack Obama ratings were not affected by focus on his looks.

In Studies 2 and 3, we had participants watch a newscast (Brian Williams or Robin Meade) or a weather forecast. Again, females were rated as less competent and warm, but males were not. In study 2, the males were actually rated better when focus was on their appearance. We also used non-attractive targets, and the results were the same; the female, but not the male, was rated worse when participants were told to focus on his or her appearance. In these studies, the men and women who were rated were wearing typical business attire that was modest.

These results occured for both male and female participants. Thus, it appears that even under fairly normal conditions (not explicitly sexualized) women face challenges that men do not. In so far as no one can escape some focus on their looks, these findings likely occur often in normal everyday life.

Research shows that perceptions of warmth and competence account for almost 90% of people's attitudes toward a person. And further, research shows that people who are rated as low in competence and warmth (such as the homeless) face the highest degree of prejudice.

In the past, we had participants focus on Sarah Palin's looks or her personality. Not only did appearance focus reduce perceptions of her competence, but it also made people less likely to vote for her. Thus, in so far as Barack Obama wasn't negatively impacted by this focus, and focus was on Palin's looks, McCain could have faced a unique detriment (via Palin) that Obama and Biden did not. This does not have to do with her attractiveness, but focus on her appearance (although, her looks likely did increase focus on her appearance).

When focus is on their looks, women (but not men) are viewed as (more) cold and incompetent, which more closely mimicks people's attitudes toward homeless people.

References:

Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuro-imaging responses to extreme outgroups. Psychological Science, 17, 847-853.

Heflick, N.A. & Goldenberg, J.L. (2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification of women reduces perceptions of female competence and humanity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598-601.

Heflick, N.A., Goldenberg, J.L, & Cooper, D. (in preperation). From women to objects: Effects of appearance focus and target gender on perceptions of warmth and competence. University of South Florida.

Note: While focus on Michelle's appearance reduced perceptions of her competence, First Lady is not as central to people's voting as VP, and as such, McCain was uniquely effected by the focus on Palin's looks.

A Person to Some, a Monster to Others.

Nathan Heflick — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:50:54 +0000

Mohammed recently died. His mother and father mourned his death, and his daughter, nine years old, could barely contain her tears. Her uncle said she basically cries all night, as does his wife.

During his life, Mohammed enjoyed sports, and taking his children to the corner shop for ice cream. Some of his favorite memories, according to friends, were staying up late at night with his wife and gazing out at the stars.

Recent research shows that not only do humans percieve out-group members as less human, but that when out-groups are humanized, desire for aggression against them can be reduced.

Did it work on you? Mohammed was an Iraqi fighting against the United State's in the current war in Iraq.

Is it possible that we don't stop to do this naturally, such that we don't see other groups through such a humanized lens? And if we only stopped to do this, to put ourselves in their shoes a bit, perhaps the world would be a more peaceful, less prejudiced place.

Stealing Babies for Officers: When Respect for Authority Turns Ugly

Nathan Heflick — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:47:45 +0000

Respect for authority figures is vital to the maintenance of society. But how far are people willing to go to follow the orders of those in charge? Would they steal someone's child? Would they "spike" someone's drink? Would they willingly push a lever to electrically shock someone to the point of possible death?

In one of the classic series of studies in social psychology (or all of psychology for that matter), Stanley Milgram of Yale University wanted to know how far people would follow the orders of authority figures. More broadly, he wanted to understand how the Holocaust happened. His belief was that the vast majority of people who committed these horrendous atrocities were not initially insane or psychopathic. They were quite normal, but had just taken following orders to another-horrific-level.

Milgram told his participants (Yale students) that they would need to electrically shock a person in another room every time they missed a question. As the person missed more and more questions, the voltage would increase, until it could even possibly kill them. Astonishingly, he found that more than 60% of participants were willing to shock someone to the point where they believed it could kill them. And of all of this over someone that they had never met, and in reality, didn't have much authority over them. Still, people did not question. They just followed orders.

Whenever I teach this study, I sense a mixture of horror and disbelief, even outrage in my students. But initially at least, none of them are willing to say that they would behave similarly to the participants in Milgram's studies (in public or in their papers). "That was so long ago" is one excuse they often muster up.

This brings me to an interesting episode of ABC's hidden camera show, "What would you do?" One segment had a man with a badge (actually purchased online!) ask people in daily situations to do seemingly horrible stuff. In one version, a woman stole another woman's baby, largely because a man with a badge told her to. In another version, a woman spiked another woman's drink at a farmer's market. And in yet another version, someone stole another's wallet.

None of these people would steal a baby or a wallet in their normal, daily life. But when an apparent authority figure enters into the picture, people OFTEN become willing to do horrible things.

Readers at this point likely still think, "I would never do that." But the truth is, many more of us would than we would like to admit to ourselves. It is one of the great lessons of decades of social psychology research that people hate to acknowledge: The social situation often exerts an incredibly powerful influence on our free will. We deny this (i.e. read up on the fundamental attribution error), but it is certainly true. Humans can do things they never thought they would do.

I am sure most of the Nazis denied this before the Holocaust.