Michel André Maréchal, Alain Cohn, Giuseppe Ugazio and Christian C. Ruff
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
April, 114(17), 4360-4364
Abstract
Honesty plays a key role in social and economic interactions and is crucial for societal functioning. However, breaches of honesty are pervasive and cause significant societal and economic problems that can affect entire nations. Despite its importance, remarkably little is known about the neurobiological mechanisms supporting honest behavior. We demonstrate that honesty can be increased in humans with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. Participants (n = 145) completed a die-rolling task where they could misreport their outcomes to increase their earnings, thereby pitting honest behavior against personal financial gain. Cheating was substantial in a control condition but decreased dramatically when neural excitability was enhanced with tDCS. This increase in honesty could not be explained by changes in material self-interest or moral beliefs and was dissociated from participants’ impulsivity, willingness to take risks, and mood. A follow-up experiment (n = 156) showed that tDCS only reduced cheating when dishonest behavior benefited the participants themselves rather than another person, suggesting that the stimulated neural process specifically resolves conflicts between honesty and material self-interest. Our results demonstrate that honesty can be strengthened by noninvasive interventions and concur with theories proposing that the human brain has evolved mechanisms dedicated to control complex social behaviors.
The article is here.
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Saturday, March 3, 2018
Why It's OK Behavioral Economics Failed To Prevent Heart Attacks
Peter Ubel
Forbes.com
Originally published January 31, 2018
Here are two excerpts:
To increase the chance people will take these important pills, a team out of the University of Pennsylvania created a behavioral economic incentive. The intervention was multipronged. It included enrolling patients in lotteries, which gave them a chance to win money every day they took their pills. It encouraged patients to enlist a friend to help them stay on track taking their pills, a friend who would get notified every time they skipped their medications for a few days in a row.
But the intervention failed — it neither increased adherence to medications nor reduced hospitalizations for heart attacks. These results are shown in the figure below, which, despite appearances, shows two lines, representing the intervention group and the control group, respectively; the lines practically merge into one...
(cut)
Sometimes behavioral economics is criticized for being over-hyped, for being touted as the answer to all our behavioral problems. I’ve been one of those critics. But my beef isn’t with behavioral economists — my research frequently draws upon insights from that field. My issue is with people who think of behavioral economics as some kind of magic wand we can wave over stubbornly harmful behavior. Changing people’s behavior is hard to do, especially without resorting to draconian measures.
We need to keep experimenting with ways to help people take care of their health.
The article is here.
Forbes.com
Originally published January 31, 2018
Here are two excerpts:
To increase the chance people will take these important pills, a team out of the University of Pennsylvania created a behavioral economic incentive. The intervention was multipronged. It included enrolling patients in lotteries, which gave them a chance to win money every day they took their pills. It encouraged patients to enlist a friend to help them stay on track taking their pills, a friend who would get notified every time they skipped their medications for a few days in a row.
But the intervention failed — it neither increased adherence to medications nor reduced hospitalizations for heart attacks. These results are shown in the figure below, which, despite appearances, shows two lines, representing the intervention group and the control group, respectively; the lines practically merge into one...
(cut)
Sometimes behavioral economics is criticized for being over-hyped, for being touted as the answer to all our behavioral problems. I’ve been one of those critics. But my beef isn’t with behavioral economists — my research frequently draws upon insights from that field. My issue is with people who think of behavioral economics as some kind of magic wand we can wave over stubbornly harmful behavior. Changing people’s behavior is hard to do, especially without resorting to draconian measures.
We need to keep experimenting with ways to help people take care of their health.
The article is here.
Friday, March 2, 2018
Burnout in mental health providers
Practice Research and Policy Staff
American Psychological Association Practice Organization
Originally published January 25, 2018
Burnout commonly affects individuals involved in the direct care of others, including mental health practitioners. Burnout consists of three components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization of clients and feelings of ineffectiveness or lack of personal accomplishment (Maslach, Jackson & Lieter, 1997). Emotional exhaustion may include feeling overextended, being unable to feel compassion for clients and feeling unable to meet workplace demands. Depersonalization is the process by which providers distance themselves from clients to prevent emotional fatigue. Finally, feelings of ineffectiveness and lack of personal accomplishment occur when practitioners feel a negative sense of personal and/or career worth.
Studies estimate that anywhere between 21 percent and 61 percent of mental health practitioners experience signs of burnout (Morse et al., 2012). Burnout has been associated with workplace climate, caseload size and severity of client symptoms (Acker, 2011; Craig & Sprang, 2010; Thompson et al., 2014). In contrast, studies examining burnout prevention have found that smaller caseloads, less paperwork and more flexibility at work are associated with lower rates of burnout (Lent & Schwartz, 2012). Burnout results in negative outcomes for both practitioners and their clients. Symptoms of burnout are not solely psychological; burnout has also been linked to physical ailments such as headaches and gastrointestinal problems (Kim et al., 2011).
The following studies examine correlates and predictors of burnout in mental health care providers. The first study investigates burnout amongst practitioners working on posttraumatic stress disorder clinical teams in Veterans Affairs (VA) health care settings. The second study examines correlates of burnout in sexual minority practitioners, and the third study investigates the impact of personality on burnout. Finally, the fourth study examines factors that may prevent burnout.
The information is here.
American Psychological Association Practice Organization
Originally published January 25, 2018
Burnout commonly affects individuals involved in the direct care of others, including mental health practitioners. Burnout consists of three components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization of clients and feelings of ineffectiveness or lack of personal accomplishment (Maslach, Jackson & Lieter, 1997). Emotional exhaustion may include feeling overextended, being unable to feel compassion for clients and feeling unable to meet workplace demands. Depersonalization is the process by which providers distance themselves from clients to prevent emotional fatigue. Finally, feelings of ineffectiveness and lack of personal accomplishment occur when practitioners feel a negative sense of personal and/or career worth.
Studies estimate that anywhere between 21 percent and 61 percent of mental health practitioners experience signs of burnout (Morse et al., 2012). Burnout has been associated with workplace climate, caseload size and severity of client symptoms (Acker, 2011; Craig & Sprang, 2010; Thompson et al., 2014). In contrast, studies examining burnout prevention have found that smaller caseloads, less paperwork and more flexibility at work are associated with lower rates of burnout (Lent & Schwartz, 2012). Burnout results in negative outcomes for both practitioners and their clients. Symptoms of burnout are not solely psychological; burnout has also been linked to physical ailments such as headaches and gastrointestinal problems (Kim et al., 2011).
The following studies examine correlates and predictors of burnout in mental health care providers. The first study investigates burnout amongst practitioners working on posttraumatic stress disorder clinical teams in Veterans Affairs (VA) health care settings. The second study examines correlates of burnout in sexual minority practitioners, and the third study investigates the impact of personality on burnout. Finally, the fourth study examines factors that may prevent burnout.
The information is here.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Concern for Others Leads to Vicarious Optimism
Andreas Kappes, Nadira S. Faber, Guy Kahane, Julian Savulescu, Molly J. Crockett
Psychological Science
First Published January 30, 2018
Abstract
An optimistic learning bias leads people to update their beliefs in response to better-than-expected good news but neglect worse-than-expected bad news. Because evidence suggests that this bias arises from self-concern, we hypothesized that a similar bias may affect beliefs about other people’s futures, to the extent that people care about others. Here, we demonstrated the phenomenon of vicarious optimism and showed that it arises from concern for others. Participants predicted the likelihood of unpleasant future events that could happen to either themselves or others. In addition to showing an optimistic learning bias for events affecting themselves, people showed vicarious optimism when learning about events affecting friends and strangers. Vicarious optimism for strangers correlated with generosity toward strangers, and experimentally increasing concern for strangers amplified vicarious optimism for them. These findings suggest that concern for others can bias beliefs about their future welfare and that optimism in learning is not restricted to oneself.
From the Discussion section
Optimism is a self-centered phenomenon in which people underestimate the likelihood of negative future events for themselves compared with others (Weinstein, 1980). Usually, the “other” is defined as a group of average others—an anonymous mass. When past studies asked participants to estimate the likelihood of an event happening to either themselves or the average population, participants did not show a learning bias for the average population (Garrett & Sharot, 2014). These findings are unsurprising given that people typically feel little concern for anonymous groups or anonymous individual strangers (Kogut & Ritov, 2005; Loewenstein et al., 2005). Yet people do care about identifiable others, and we accordingly found that people exhibit an optimistic learning bias for identifiable strangers and, even more markedly, for friends. Our research thereby suggests that optimism in learning is not restricted to oneself. We see not only our own lives through rose-tinted glasses but also the lives of those we care about.
The research is here.
Psychological Science
First Published January 30, 2018
Abstract
An optimistic learning bias leads people to update their beliefs in response to better-than-expected good news but neglect worse-than-expected bad news. Because evidence suggests that this bias arises from self-concern, we hypothesized that a similar bias may affect beliefs about other people’s futures, to the extent that people care about others. Here, we demonstrated the phenomenon of vicarious optimism and showed that it arises from concern for others. Participants predicted the likelihood of unpleasant future events that could happen to either themselves or others. In addition to showing an optimistic learning bias for events affecting themselves, people showed vicarious optimism when learning about events affecting friends and strangers. Vicarious optimism for strangers correlated with generosity toward strangers, and experimentally increasing concern for strangers amplified vicarious optimism for them. These findings suggest that concern for others can bias beliefs about their future welfare and that optimism in learning is not restricted to oneself.
From the Discussion section
Optimism is a self-centered phenomenon in which people underestimate the likelihood of negative future events for themselves compared with others (Weinstein, 1980). Usually, the “other” is defined as a group of average others—an anonymous mass. When past studies asked participants to estimate the likelihood of an event happening to either themselves or the average population, participants did not show a learning bias for the average population (Garrett & Sharot, 2014). These findings are unsurprising given that people typically feel little concern for anonymous groups or anonymous individual strangers (Kogut & Ritov, 2005; Loewenstein et al., 2005). Yet people do care about identifiable others, and we accordingly found that people exhibit an optimistic learning bias for identifiable strangers and, even more markedly, for friends. Our research thereby suggests that optimism in learning is not restricted to oneself. We see not only our own lives through rose-tinted glasses but also the lives of those we care about.
The research is here.
Monkeys? Humans? The ethics of testing diesel fumes
Joel Gunter
BBC News
Originally published January 30, 2018
"These tests on monkeys or even humans cannot be justified ethically in any way," said Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks called the experiments "abominable", opposition politician Stephan Weil said they were "absurd and abhorrent".
But in a world where animal testing and paid medical testing on humans is commonplace, why have these particular tests provoked such outrage?
The exact nature of the VW tests is not known, as their methodology and findings have not been made public, but two independent scientists who have conducted air pollution tests on human volunteers told the BBC that similar tests on humans are commonplace.
"There have been hundreds of such studies, in most countries in the world, over the last 30 years," said Frank Kelly, professor of environmental health at King's College London. "They are funded by national governments, following strict ethical review, to understand the impact of emissions on human health."
The controversial, and possibly unethical, aspect of the VW testing was that it had been funded by a lobby group rather than an independent, government-funded body, he said.
The article is here.
BBC News
Originally published January 30, 2018
"These tests on monkeys or even humans cannot be justified ethically in any way," said Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Environment Minister Barbara Hendricks called the experiments "abominable", opposition politician Stephan Weil said they were "absurd and abhorrent".
But in a world where animal testing and paid medical testing on humans is commonplace, why have these particular tests provoked such outrage?
The exact nature of the VW tests is not known, as their methodology and findings have not been made public, but two independent scientists who have conducted air pollution tests on human volunteers told the BBC that similar tests on humans are commonplace.
"There have been hundreds of such studies, in most countries in the world, over the last 30 years," said Frank Kelly, professor of environmental health at King's College London. "They are funded by national governments, following strict ethical review, to understand the impact of emissions on human health."
The controversial, and possibly unethical, aspect of the VW testing was that it had been funded by a lobby group rather than an independent, government-funded body, he said.
The article is here.
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Can scientists agree on a code of ethics?
David Ryan Polgar
BigThink.com
Originally published January 30, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Regarding the motivation for developing this Code of Ethics, Hug mentioned the threat of reduced credibility of research if the standards seem to loose. She mentioned the pressure that many young scientists face in being prolific with research, insinuating the tension with quantity versus quality. "We want research to remain credible because we want it to have an impact on policymakers, research being turned into action." One of the goals of Hug presenting about the Code of Ethics, she said, was to start having various research institutions endorse the document, and have those institutions start distributing the Code of Ethics within their network.
“All these goals will conflict with each other," said Jodi Halpern, referring to the issues that may get in the way of adopting a code of ethics for scientists. "People need rigorous education in ethical reasoning, which is just as rigorous as science education...what I’d rather have as a requirement, if I’d like to put teeth anywhere. I’d like to have every doctoral student not just have one of those superficial IRB fake compliance courses, but I’d like to have them have to pass a rigorous exam showing how they would deal with certain ethical dilemmas. And everybody who will be the head of a lab someday will have really learned how to do that type of thinking.”
The article is here.
BigThink.com
Originally published January 30, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
Regarding the motivation for developing this Code of Ethics, Hug mentioned the threat of reduced credibility of research if the standards seem to loose. She mentioned the pressure that many young scientists face in being prolific with research, insinuating the tension with quantity versus quality. "We want research to remain credible because we want it to have an impact on policymakers, research being turned into action." One of the goals of Hug presenting about the Code of Ethics, she said, was to start having various research institutions endorse the document, and have those institutions start distributing the Code of Ethics within their network.
“All these goals will conflict with each other," said Jodi Halpern, referring to the issues that may get in the way of adopting a code of ethics for scientists. "People need rigorous education in ethical reasoning, which is just as rigorous as science education...what I’d rather have as a requirement, if I’d like to put teeth anywhere. I’d like to have every doctoral student not just have one of those superficial IRB fake compliance courses, but I’d like to have them have to pass a rigorous exam showing how they would deal with certain ethical dilemmas. And everybody who will be the head of a lab someday will have really learned how to do that type of thinking.”
The article is here.
Why willpower is overrated
Brian Resnick
vox.com
Originally published January 15, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
What we can learn from people who are good at self-control
So who are these people who are rarely tested by temptations? They’re doing something right. Recent research suggests a few lessons we can draw from them.
1) People who are better at self-control actually enjoy the activities some of us resist — like eating healthy, studying, or exercising.
So engaging in these activities isn’t a chore for them. It’s fun.
“‘Want to’ goals are more likely to be obtained than ‘have to’ goals,” Milyavskaya said in an interview last year. “Want-to goals lead to experiences of fewer temptations. It’s easier to pursue those goals. It feels more effortless.”
If you’re running because you “have to” get in shape but find running to be a miserable activity, you’re probably not going to keep it up. An activity you like is more likely to be repeated than an activity you hate.
2) People who are good at self-control have learned better habits.
In 2015, psychologists Brian Galla and Angela Duckworth published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, finding across six studies and more than 2,000 participants that people who are good at self-control also tend to have good habits — like exercising regularly, eating healthy, sleeping well, and studying.
“People who are good at self-control … seem to be structuring their lives in a way to avoid having to make a self-control decision in the first place,” Galla tells me. And structuring your life is a skill. People who do the same activity, like running or meditating, at the same time each day have an easier time accomplishing their goals, he says — not because of their willpower, but because the routine makes it easier.
The article is here.
vox.com
Originally published January 15, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
What we can learn from people who are good at self-control
So who are these people who are rarely tested by temptations? They’re doing something right. Recent research suggests a few lessons we can draw from them.
1) People who are better at self-control actually enjoy the activities some of us resist — like eating healthy, studying, or exercising.
So engaging in these activities isn’t a chore for them. It’s fun.
“‘Want to’ goals are more likely to be obtained than ‘have to’ goals,” Milyavskaya said in an interview last year. “Want-to goals lead to experiences of fewer temptations. It’s easier to pursue those goals. It feels more effortless.”
If you’re running because you “have to” get in shape but find running to be a miserable activity, you’re probably not going to keep it up. An activity you like is more likely to be repeated than an activity you hate.
2) People who are good at self-control have learned better habits.
In 2015, psychologists Brian Galla and Angela Duckworth published a paper in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, finding across six studies and more than 2,000 participants that people who are good at self-control also tend to have good habits — like exercising regularly, eating healthy, sleeping well, and studying.
“People who are good at self-control … seem to be structuring their lives in a way to avoid having to make a self-control decision in the first place,” Galla tells me. And structuring your life is a skill. People who do the same activity, like running or meditating, at the same time each day have an easier time accomplishing their goals, he says — not because of their willpower, but because the routine makes it easier.
The article is here.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Artificial neurons compute faster than the human brain
Sara Reardon
Nature
Originally published January 26, 2018
Superconducting computing chips modelled after neurons can process information faster and more efficiently than the human brain. That achievement, described in Science Advances on 26 January, is a key benchmark in the development of advanced computing devices designed to mimic biological systems. And it could open the door to more natural machine-learning software, although many hurdles remain before it could be used commercially.
Artificial intelligence software has increasingly begun to imitate the brain. Algorithms such as Google’s automatic image-classification and language-learning programs use networks of artificial neurons to perform complex tasks. But because conventional computer hardware was not designed to run brain-like algorithms, these machine-learning tasks require orders of magnitude more computing power than the human brain does.
“There must be a better way to do this, because nature has figured out a better way to do this,” says Michael Schneider, a physicist at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, and a co-author of the study.
The article is here.
Nature
Originally published January 26, 2018
Superconducting computing chips modelled after neurons can process information faster and more efficiently than the human brain. That achievement, described in Science Advances on 26 January, is a key benchmark in the development of advanced computing devices designed to mimic biological systems. And it could open the door to more natural machine-learning software, although many hurdles remain before it could be used commercially.
Artificial intelligence software has increasingly begun to imitate the brain. Algorithms such as Google’s automatic image-classification and language-learning programs use networks of artificial neurons to perform complex tasks. But because conventional computer hardware was not designed to run brain-like algorithms, these machine-learning tasks require orders of magnitude more computing power than the human brain does.
“There must be a better way to do this, because nature has figured out a better way to do this,” says Michael Schneider, a physicist at the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, and a co-author of the study.
The article is here.
After long battle, mental health will be part of New York's school curriculum
Bethany Bump
Times Union
Originally published January 27, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The idea of teaching young people about mental health is not a new one.
The mental hygiene movement of the early 1900s introduced society to the concept that mental wellness could be just as important as physical wellness.,
In 1928, a nationwide group of superintendents recommended that mental hygiene be included in the teaching of health education, but it was not.
"When you talk about mental health and mental illness, people are still, because of the stigma, in the closet about it," Liebman said. "People just don't talk about it like they talk about physical illness."
Social media has strengthened the movement to de-stigmatize mental illness, he said. "People are being more candid about their mental health issues and seeking support and using social media as kind of a fulcrum for gaining support, peers and friends in their recovery," Liebman said.
Making the case
Advocates of the law want people to know they are not pushing for students or schoolteachers to become diagnosticians. They say that is best left to professionals.
Adding mental health literacy to the curriculum will provide youth with the knowledge of how to prevent mental disorders, recognize when a disorder is developing, know how and where to seek help and treatment, strategies for dealing with milder issues, and strategies for supporting others who are struggling.
The information is here.
Times Union
Originally published January 27, 2018
Here is an excerpt:
The idea of teaching young people about mental health is not a new one.
The mental hygiene movement of the early 1900s introduced society to the concept that mental wellness could be just as important as physical wellness.,
In 1928, a nationwide group of superintendents recommended that mental hygiene be included in the teaching of health education, but it was not.
"When you talk about mental health and mental illness, people are still, because of the stigma, in the closet about it," Liebman said. "People just don't talk about it like they talk about physical illness."
Social media has strengthened the movement to de-stigmatize mental illness, he said. "People are being more candid about their mental health issues and seeking support and using social media as kind of a fulcrum for gaining support, peers and friends in their recovery," Liebman said.
Making the case
Advocates of the law want people to know they are not pushing for students or schoolteachers to become diagnosticians. They say that is best left to professionals.
Adding mental health literacy to the curriculum will provide youth with the knowledge of how to prevent mental disorders, recognize when a disorder is developing, know how and where to seek help and treatment, strategies for dealing with milder issues, and strategies for supporting others who are struggling.
The information is here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)