Your popularity may be in your genes

News item
A news study of popularity by a Michigan State University scientist has found that genes elicit not only specific behaviors but also the social consequences of those behaviors.
According to the investigation by behavioral geneticist S. Alexandra Burt, male college students who had a gene associated with rule-breaking behavior were rated most popular by a group of previously unacquainted peers.
It’s not unusual for adolescent rule-breakers to be well-liked – previous research has made that link – but Burt is the first to provide meaningful evidence for the role of a specific gene in this process. The study will appear in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is published by the American Psychological Association.
“The idea is that your genes predispose you to certain behaviors and those behaviors elicit different kinds of social reactions from others,” said Burt, assistant professor of psychology. “And so what’s happening is, your genes are to some extent driving your social experiences.”
The concept – which researchers call “evocative gene-environment correlation” – had been discussed in scientific literature but only in theory. This study is the first to really flesh out the process, establishing clear connections between a specific gene, particular behaviors and actual social situations, she said.
Burt collected DNA from more than 200 male college students in two separate samples. After interacting in a lab setting for about an hour, the students filled out a questionnaire about whom they most liked in their group. In both samples, the most popular students turned out to be the ones with a particular form of a serotonin gene that was also associated with rule-breaking behavior.
“So the gene predisposed them to rule-breaking behavior and their rule-breaking behavior made them more popular,” Burt said.
Burt is working on similar studies with female college students, as well as mixed-gender social groups. She also plans to explore associations with other social behaviors and other genes in larger samples.

Read more!

Is your dog chasing its tail? Might be OCD

Dogs suffer depression and anxiety, so why not OCD? Reporter Paula Ebben of WBZ in Boston posted on December 24 about those quirky dog behaviors, like tail-chasing or compulsive biting. According to Dr. Nick Dodman of Tufts University, these kinds of behaviors are the canine version of OCD.
Some breeds are even predisposed to OCD, most notably German Shpeherds and Doberman Pinschers.
The treatment? Antidepressants such as Zoloft and Prozac.

Read more!

A smashing solution to stress

In Tokyo, Katsuya Hara and a group of chiropractor colleagues are offering stress relief from the back of a truck they call "The Venting Place." Inspired by the financial crisis on seemingly everyone's minds these days, these entrepreneurial doctors allow people to smash crockery in the back of their truck, for a fee of course. About $2 USD will buy you the right to throw a small cup and $11 USD will bring you a big plate. Protective gear is provided. You can read more about this in a story from Reuters on MSNBC.
Read more!

Reasons to stick to your resolutions

With the new year approaching, millions of people are expected to ring in 2009 by making resolutions to improve their lives. A Duke University researcher says the consequences of some personal decisions provide important reasons to stick to those vows in the coming year.
New research conducted by Ralph L. Keeney of Duke’s Fuqua School of Business, concludes that personal decisions lead to more than one million premature deaths annually in the U.S.
Keeney’s work, published in the current issue of the INFORMS journal Operations Research, shows that personal decisions are the leading cause of death in the U.S. if one takes into account the role of obesity and smoking in creating heart disease and cancer, the primary causes of death in the U.S.
"Previous researchers have identified the main causes of heart disease and cancer as smoking and being overweight, each of which results in over 400,000 deaths annually," Keeney said.
With the number of personal choices made in a given day, many individuals don’t take a step back to look at the long-term implications of those choices, Keeney said. From having unprotected sex to not buckling the seatbelt before driving, many of these decisions can eventually result in death. Other personal decisions that lead to significant premature deaths include overconsumption of alcohol, reckless driving, homicide and suicide.
Keeney’s results showed that more than 55 percent of all deaths for individuals aged 15 to 64 can be attributed to personal decisions that have readily available alternatives.
"Given that the impacts of smoking and being overweight start taking a heavy toll in the mid-30s, I wasn't surprised with this result for people over 35," Keeney said. "However, I was surprised that more than 55 percent of the deaths to individuals 15 to 24 years old could be avoided with different easy-to-make personal decisions. For many of these individuals, more than 40 years of potential productive life is lost."
Keeney said individuals have a great deal of control over their own mortality. His research also shows that individuals don’t always need to rely on others, including government, hospitals and nonprofit organizations, to make their lives safer, because they can easily take effective action to make their own lives and those of their families safer.
Common sense lifesaving choices include: avoiding smoking, drinking alcohol in moderation, exercising regularly, driving sober and abiding by the speed limit, not using illicit drugs and practicing safe sex.
Artwork: Svilen Mushkatov

Read more!

Brain food: Chocolate, wine and tea

All that chocolate might actually help finish the bumper Christmas crossword over the seasonal period. According to Oxford researchers working with colleagues in Norway, chocolate, wine and tea enhance cognitive performance.
The team from Oxford’s Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics and Norway examined the relation between cognitive performance and the intake of three common foodstuffs that contain flavonoids (chocolate, wine, and tea) in 2,031 older people (aged between 70 and 74).
Participants filled in information about their habitual food intake and underwent a battery of cognitive tests.Those who consumed chocolate, wine, or tea had significantly better mean test scores and lower prevalence of poor cognitive performance than those who did not. The team reported their findings in the Journal of Nutrition.
The role of micronutrients in age-related cognitive decline is being increasingly studied. Fruits and beverages such as tea, red wine, cocoa, and coffee are major dietary sources of polyphenols, micronutrients found in plant-derived foods. The largest subclass of dietary polyphenols is flavonoids, and it has been reported in the past that those who consume lots of flavonoids have a lower incidence of dementia.
The latest findings seem to support the theory, although the researchers caution that more research would be needed to prove that it was flavonoids, rather than some other aspect of the foods studied, that made the difference.The effect was most pronounced for wine.
However, say the researchers, those overdoing it at Christmas should note that while moderate alcohol consumption is associated with better cognitive function and reduced risk of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia, heavy alcohol intake could be one of many causes of dementia – as well as a host of other health problems.
Read more!

A matter of give and take

It has often been said that we humans tend to cling to one negative experience, even in the face of a hundred positive ones, and new research is bearing out this old axiom. According to scientists at the University of Chicago, feeling slighted has a significantly greater impact tha feeling you've been treated well.
"Negative reciprocity, or taking, escalates," said Boaz Keysar, Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and lead author of the paper "Reciprocity is Not Give and Take: Asymmetric Reciprocity to Positive and Negative Acts," published in the December issue of Psychological Science. The study was based on giving-and-taking games conducted on students and people in downtown Chicago.
The games provided data on how people respond to give-and-take social exchanges.
"For instance in driving, if you are kind and let someone go in front of you, that driver may be considerate in response. But if you cut someone off, that person may react very aggressively, and this could escalate to road rage," Keysar said.
The situation can escalate when the person doing the slighting doesn't appreciate how strongly the slight is being experienced, Keysar said. "The one receiving the slight cannot imagine that the slighter lacks that appreciation. And so it goes, because of such differential perception, they respond more and more strongly. Small slights could escalate to unbelievable, irrational feuds," he explained.
Nicholas Epley, Professor in the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, and University graduate students Benjamin Converse and Jiunwen Wang joined Keysar in the research. To examine how people respond to situations involving reciprocity, researchers conducted experiments on campus as well as in downtown Chicago with people on the street.
One such experiment tested 40 college students. The students were divided into two groups and asked to conduct experiments that began in two different ways using money. In the first group, one player learned that another player had $100 and was going to share it. In each situation, the player with the money gave the other player $50. When the roles were reversed, the players who received the $50 received $100 which they could share with the other players. In that exchange, those players gave their partners on average $49.50.
In a companion experiment, the scholars found that the act of taking had a far bigger impact on people's responses than did the act of sharing. A player received $100 from which another player was able to take as much as desired. That player took $50, leaving the first player with $50 just like in the sharing experiment. But when the roles were reversed, the first players took back much more, leaving the partners with an average of $42.
Another experiment confirmed the pattern, showing that taking quickly escalated as players became increasingly greedy over repeated exchanges. In the college experiments, the players did not keep the money, but the results were the same in an experiment in downtown Chicago, where $10 was exchanged and players kept their money.
The study, which was supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Institute for Mental Health, and the Templeton Foundation, shows various social exchanges differ from those in the marketplace, where goods are bought and sold, Keysar said. "Acts of giving are perceived as more generous in social exchanges than objectively identical acts of taking," Keysar said. "Taking tends to escalate. Reciprocity appears to operate on an exchange rate that assigns value to the meaning of events, in a fashion that encourages pro-social exchanges."
Read more!

A follow-up on laughter yoga

Over the weekend, I received an informative book, aptly titled Latterkursus , the Laughter Ebook in English, from Peter Froberg in Copenhagen, Denmark in response to my post last week about laughter yoga. Mr. Froberg's expose is quite informative and, just reading it induced a few much-needed belly laughs. It's a quick read and free, too. Thank you, Mr. Froberg!

Read more!