Are you interested in sleep paralysis? If so, check out this new article: Sleep Paralysis and the Monsters Inside Your Mind - Scientific American http://ow.ly/J9E230qYF1T #psychstudentrss ... View more

On June 17, 2020, the psychological science community said goodbye to Anders Ericsson, who history will remember as the researcher who found that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert. Sort of. Ericsson, Ralf Kampe, and Clemens Tesch-Römer (1993) recruited 30 student violinists (“best,” “good,” and “music teachers”). I admit to wincing at the label “music teachers” for the least-skilled group. They wrote, “We call the students from the department of music education the ‘music teachers’ because teaching is the most likely future profession for this group.” [I had to remind myself that teaching is a skill unto itself, just not the skill they were after in this particularly study.] All 30 participants had at least 10 years of violin-playing experience, so there were no novices in the group. The students kept a diary for one week. The “best” and “good” violinists practiced an average of 24.3 hours that week. The “music teachers” practiced 9.3 hours. Where does the 10,000 hours of practice come from? Ericsson et al. asked the violinists to estimate “the average number of hours of practice alone with the violin per week for each year since they had started playing the violin.” By multiplying the number of hours per week by 52 weeks, they calculated an estimate of number of hours of practice for each year. And then they added up the yearly totals. By the age of 20, the “best” and “good” students had accumulated 10,000 hours of practice. Because they were concerned that the music academy they had been attending for the last two years would artificially inflate the number of hours of practice, they dialed back the age to 18. How many hours of practice had the violinists accumulated by age 18? The “best” students had 7,410 hours of practice. The “good students” had 5,301 hours of practice. The “music teachers” had a mere 3,420 hours of practice. For comparison, Ericsson et al. asked 10 middle-aged, accomplished, professional violinists to estimate the number of hours they practiced each week for each year they played the violin up to age 18. They estimated 7,336 hours, virtually identical to the “best” students. A follow-up study with pianists found similar results. By age 18, the “best” pianists had amassed an estimated 7,606 hours of practice. By age 20, the total was over 10,000 hours. Ericsson et al. emphasized that it’s not just quantity of practice, but quality of practice. “[W]e argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve” (Ericsson et al., 1993, p. 400). Experts have deliberately worked to improve their skills. They have not simply done the same—potentially wrong—thing hour after hour. “Does practice make perfect? ‘Practice makes perfect’—only if the practice is perfect” (Bennett, 1923, p. 49). ******** If you would like to make this an online discussion, provide the above information to your students (edit at will). While the link below goes to the NYTimes.com, consider linking to his obituary through your library’s database in case your students have exceeded the maximum number of free NYTimes.com articles for the month. Initial post Read Dr. Anders Ericsson’s obituary in the New York Times. Part A. Quote Find a quote from the obituary that you found interesting and in 100+ words of reflection, explain why. Be sure to use quotation marks for your quote; the quotation is not part of the 100+ word count. Part B. 10,000 hours (100+ words)      Having read Ericsson’s obituary and the information provided above, would you say that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to make someone an expert? Why or why not? How you would define “expert.” For example, when would you say that someone is an expert? Do think it matters at what point in life the hours of practice happens? Why or why not? Part C. Question If you had had the opportunity to ask Anders Ericsson a question, what would it have been? In 50+ words, explain why chose that question. Responses Please respond to the initial discussion posts written by at least two of your classmates. Part A. In 50+ words, respond to the quote chosen with at least two of the following: A compliment, e.g., "I like how... because...," I like that... because..." A comment, e.g., "I agree that... because...," "I disagree that... because..." A connection, e.g., "I have also thought that...," "That reminds me of..." A question, e.g., "I wonder why...," "I wonder how..."  Part B. In 50+ words, respond to the 10,000-hour reflection with at least two of the following: A compliment, e.g., "I like how... because...," I like that... because..." A comment, e.g., "I agree that... because...," "I disagree that... because..." A connection, e.g., "I have also thought that...," "That reminds me of..." A question, e.g., "I wonder why...," "I wonder how..."  Part C. In 50+ words, provide your reaction to the question to Ericsson in the initial post. Use at least two of the following: A compliment, e.g., "I like how... because...," I like that... because..." A comment, e.g., "I agree that... because...," "I disagree that... because..." A connection, e.g., "I have also thought that...," "That reminds me of..." A question, e.g., "I wonder why...," "I wonder how..."    References Bennett, H. (1923). Psychology and Self-Development. Ginn and Company. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363 ... View more

It’s valuable for students to learn a little bit about the researchers whose names plaster the insides of their textbooks. Each researcher comes from a background that matches that of at least some of our students. We want our students to think like this: “If they can become a respected psychological scientist, so can I.” This month (June 2020) we said goodbye to William Dement. Intro Psych instructors know his name because of his important sleep research. Obituaries are mini biographies that give us an opportunity to celebrate a person’s life. This discussion invites students to read Dement’s obituary and reflect on his contributions to psychological science. In the instructions below, I provide a link to the obituary on the New York Time website. Because the NYTimes limits the number of free articles available each month, however, it would be better if you provide a link to the obituary through your library’s database. If you’re not sure how to do that, contact your institution’s friendly librarian or your equally-friendly public librarian. While this is presented as an asynchronous online discussion, it may be easily adapted as a synchronous discussion or as a stand-alone assignment. The compliment/comment/connection/question framework is courtesy of Jenn Stewart-Mitchell. **** Initial post Dr. William Dement, sleep researcher, passed away on June 17, 2020. Read his obituary in the New York Times. Part A. Quote Find a quote from the obituary that you found interesting and in 100+ words of reflection, explain why. Be sure to use quotation marks for your quote; the quotation is not part of the 100+ word count. Part B. Research After reviewing Dement’s research as provided in both the obituary and your textbook, what do you think was his most important study? In 100+ words, describe the study, then explain why you chose it as his most important. Part C. Teaching In 50+ words, would you have wanted to take his class on sleep and dreams? Why or why not? Responses Please respond to the initial discussion posts written by at least two of your classmates. Part A. In 50+ words, respond to the quote chosen with at least two of the following: A compliment, e.g., "I like how... because...," I like that... because..." A comment, e.g., "I agree that... because...," "I disagree that... because..." A connection, e.g., "I have also thought that...," "That reminds me of..." A question, e.g., "I wonder why...," "I wonder how..."  Part B. In 50+ words, respond to the research selected with at least two of the following: A compliment, e.g., "I like how... because...," I like that... because..." A comment, e.g., "I agree that... because...," "I disagree that... because..." A connection, e.g., "I have also thought that...," "That reminds me of..." A question, e.g., "I wonder why...," "I wonder how..."  Part C. In 50+ words, provide your reaction to what was written in the initial post about taking his class. Use at least two of the following: A compliment, e.g., "I like how... because...," I like that... because..." A comment, e.g., "I agree that... because...," "I disagree that... because..." A connection, e.g., "I have also thought that...," "That reminds me of..." A question, e.g., "I wonder why...," "I wonder how..."          ... View more

One of the perennial challenges in teaching Intro Psych is helping students understand that knowing that two variables are, say, positively correlated does not tell us anything about what causes that relationship. Discussion of this study would work during your coverage of correlations or during your coverage of circadian rhythms as an opportunity to revisit correlations. The 6.5-year study of 433,268 British adults (Knutson & von Schantz, 2018) provides us with an illustrative example. The researchers asked each person “Do you consider yourself to be definitely a morning person [27%], more a morning than evening person [35%], more an evening than morning person [28%], definitely an evening person [9%].” “Increased eveningness, particularly definite evening type, was associated with increased prevalence of a wide variety of diseases or disorders, including dia- betes, psychological, neurological, respiratory and gastrointestinal/abdominal disorders.” If your Intro Psych students are like most people, they want to jump to the conclusion that being a night owl will cause a number of health problems that will eventually lead to an early death. The lead author of this study, Kristen Knutson, thinks the root of the problem is really that of a mismatch. Many of our societies are geared toward the morning chronotype. If you have an evening chronotype but are trying to work, say, 9am to 5pm, you’re fighting against your own internal clock (Khan, 2018).   Ask students to work in pairs or small groups to generate a list of factors that are associated with good health. Perhaps their list includes things like exercising, getting good sleep, eating well, and developing and maintaining strong social ties. Now ask students to consider why these things may be more difficult for night owls than morning larks. For example, how many recreational sports teams compete at 11pm? How many spin or yoga classes are offered at midnight? How easy is it to find a restaurant with healthy fare at 10:30pm? How hard is it to get enough sleep when you don’t get sleepy until 2am but have to be up at 7am to be a work by 9am? Maintaining social ties is difficult for night owls who want to hang out at 10pm when most of their friends are headed to bed (Clark, 2019). The cause of the correlation between chronotype and health may be due to this whole host of third factors. What if night owls were allowed to be night owls? Would a night owl yoga instructor, for example, teaching at 11pm have night owl students? Would night owls get more sleep if they worked, say, 2pm to 10pm? If time allows, ask volunteers to share their chronotypes and how they’ve adjusted their schedules to fit that chronotype. Or, if their schedules don’t fit, to share why that’s a struggle. In closing this activity, reiterate that knowing that there is a relationship between two variables tells us nothing about why two variables are related.    References Clark, B. (2019, May 23). No, night owls aren’t doomed to die early. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/23/smarter-living/no-night-owls-arent-doomed-to-die-early.html Khan, A. (2018, April 11). Bad news for night owls. Their risk of early death is 10% higher than for early risers, study finds. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-night-owl-death-20180412-story.html Knutson, K. L., & von Schantz, M. (2018). Associations between chronotype, morbidity and mortality in the UK Biobank cohort. Chronobiology International, 35(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1080/07420528.2018.1454458     ... View more

Psychology students often struggle with the difference between the independent and dependent variables. After covering these concepts, ask students to work in pairs or small groups to identify both the independent variable(s) and the dependent variable(s) in each example. Hypothesis: Creating concrete examples will improve recall. "Students read a short text that introduced eight concepts. Some students were then prompted to generate concrete examples of each concept followed by definition restudy, whereas others only restudied definitions for the same amount of time. Two days later, students completed final tests involving example generation and definition cued recall." (In the definition cued recall test, the cues were the names of each of the concepts; the "recall" was the student writing down the definition.) Those who created their own examples of each of the concepts did better on the test than students who just restudied the concepts.  In this experiment, identify the independent variable and the dependent variable.  Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2016). How effective is example generation for learning declarative concepts? Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9377-z   Hypothesis: Attending to a phone will decrease the likelihood of seeing a unicycling clown. People, after walking across a college square, were asked if they saw a clown unicycling around a central sculpture. Only 25% of cell phone users reported seeing the clown as compared to 60% of people who were listening to music, 51% of people who were walking alone with no technological distractions, and 71% of people who were walking with another person. This type of study is called a quasi-experiment because participants weren't randomly assigned to conditions. In this experiment, identify the independent variable and the dependent variable.  Hyman, I. E., Boss, S. M., Wise, B. M., McKenzie, K. E., & Caggiano, J. M. (2010). Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone.  Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1638   Hypothesis: Being sleep-deprived will increase the desire for high-calorie foods. After either get a full night’s sleep or staying awake all night, participants were asked how desirable each of 80 different foods were.  When participants were sleep-deprived, they found high-calorie foods more desirable than when they had a full night’s sleep. This type study is called a within-subjects design because the same participants got both the full night’s sleep and, on another night, stayed awake all night. In this experiment, identify the independent variable and the dependent variable.  Greer, S. M., Goldstein, A. N., & Walker, M. P. (2013). The impact of sleep deprivation on food desire in the human brain. Nature Communications, 4, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3259   Hypothesis: “Inflated praise [will] decrease challenge-seeking in children with low self-esteem but [will] increase challenge-seeking in children with high self-esteem.” Children (ages 8 to 12), after having their self-esteem measured, “drew a famous painting… and were told that that a professional painter, who in reality did not exist, would examine their drawing.”  Each child then received a handwritten note that they were told was written by the painter. The note said either, “You made an incredibly beautiful drawing!,” “You made a beautiful drawing!,” or did not address the drawing. Children then could choose to replicate two easy drawings (“If you choose to draw these easy pictures, you won’t make many mistakes, but you won’t learn much either.”) or two difficult drawings (“If you choose to draw thsese difficult pictures, you might make many mistakes, but you’ll definitely learn a lot, too.”). Children with low self-esteem who received the incredibly beautiful praise were more likely to choose the easy drawings. Children with low self-esteem who received the beautiful praise were likely to choose the difficult drawings. Those results were reversed for children with low self-esteem. In this experiment, identify the two independent variables and the dependent variable. Brummelman, E., Thomaes, S., Orobio de Castro, B., Overbeek, G., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). “That’s not just beautiful-that’s incredibly beautiful!”: The adverse impact of inflated praise on children with low self-esteem. Psychological Science, 25(3), 728–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613514251   Hypothesis: Tasters will rate vinegar-laced beer as better than regular beer if they are not first told that vinegar has been added to the beer. Participants were invited to taste two different beers and express their preference for one over the other. Participants were told that the beer was laced with vinegar either before or after tasting or were told nothing. Participants who weren’t told that the beer was laced with vinegar or were told after they tasted it preferred it over the regular beer. Those who were told it was laced with vinegar before tasting it preferred the regular beer. In this experiment, identify the independent variable and the dependent variable. Lee, L., Frederick, S., & Ariely, D. (2006). Try it, you’ll like it: The influence of expectation, consumption, and revelation on preferences for beer. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1054–1058. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01829.x ... View more

No, your students will not be texting or talking/listening to a phone in a crosswalk! Instead, they will be observing others who are. A recent study (Alsaleh, Sayed, & Zaki, 2018)* found that people who were on their phones – either looking at their screens or talking/listening to their phone – took longer to cross the street. This is dangerous for a number of reasons. For example, distracted pedestrians are not on the lookout for distracted motorists. When distracted pedestrians and distracted motorists meet, distracted pedestrians always lose. Since distracted pedestrians spend more time in the crosswalk, they have a greater chance of being hit by a distracted motorist. How much time does it take? In urban areas, lanes should be 10 feet (3 meters) wide (National Association of City Transportation Officials, n.d.). That makes a four-lane road 40 feet (12 meters) wide. In the distraction study (Alsaleh et al., 2018), non-distracted pedestrians walked at a rate of 1.66 meters/second. That means it took them about 7 seconds to cross a four-lane road. In contrast, researchers found that phone-distracted pedestrians walked at a rate of about 1.5 meters/second, taking about 8 seconds to cross a four-lane road. The activity The researchers used observers on the ground to determine whether and how pedestrians were using their phones and used cameras to determine walking speed. For this activity, all measures will be done by observers. Divide students into groups no smaller than three students. One student will determine if the pedestrian is distracted by their phone or not. Since the researchers found no difference in walking speed between looking at the phone and talking/listening, let’s keep this simple and not ask students to make the distinction. One student will be the timer. Using a stopwatch app on their own phone, the student will time how long it takes the pedestrian to cross the street. The third student will be the recorder – recording whether the pedestrian was distracted and recording the time it took the pedestrian to cross the street. Students will need to make some decisions before heading out. If you would like to compile the data across groups, then you should have this discussion as a class. If you would like to discuss how each group’s decisions affected their results afterwards, then let each group decide these on their own. Consider these as starter questions. When students return from the activity, they may have other issues that should have been considered in advance. That is a great opportunity to talk about the importance of pilot studies and their role in helping sort out these issues before investing time in a larger study. Where are they going to do their observations? Ideally, it will be a street with a lot of pedestrian traffic. The wider the street, the easier it will be see differences in the time it takes to cross. If there is a group of people waiting to cross the street, how will students determine who to time? The first person to cross? The right-most person? How will the students identify the person to each other to make sure that the student noting the phone behavior and the student doing the timing are looking at the same pedestrian? When will the timing start? When the target pedestrian lifts a foot to step off the curb? When the foot first hits the street? When will the timing stop? When the target pedestrian lifts a foot to stop onto the curb? When the last foot leaves the pavement? How will the recorder record the data? How many columns will be in the data sheet? To how many decimal places will the stopwatch times be recorded? How long will they collect data? Or how many pedestrians should they time? What if all of the pedestrians are on a phone? When students return with their data, either that same class period or the next class period, have the recording student enter their data in a shared Google spreadsheet, for example. One column should be the first and last initials of each member of the group, one column is for non-distracted times, and one column is for distracted times. Calculate means for the non-distracted and distracted pedestrians. If you’d like, conduct a t-test if you want to talk about statistical significance. If some groups seem to have much slower or longer times than other groups, discuss the methodology they used. Give each group an opportunity to share with the class what they would do differently if they were to conduct this observational research study again. Conclusion To conclude the activity, explain that if the class were to submit this study for publication, the authors would summarize the research related to this topic, explain in detail how the study was conducted, reveal the results, and finally explain what the findings mean, how they add to the body of research on this topic, and identify what could be done differently or better next time. Now is also a good time to explain the peer review process and the importance of replication.   References Alsaleh, R., Sayed, T., & Zaki, M. H. (2018). Assessing the effect of pedestrians’ use of cell phones on their walking behavior. Transportation Research Record , Advance online publication. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118780708 National Association of City Transportation Officials. (n.d.). Lane width. Retrieved August 17, 2018, from https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/street-design-elements/lane-width/   *Note: The full article by Alsaleh et al. is available through ResearchGate. ... View more

It’s well-established that: brain cells survive for a time after cardiac arrest and even after declared death. some people have been resuscitated after cardiac arrest— even hours after, if they were linked to blood-oxygenating and heart-massaging machines. a fraction of resuscitated people have reported experiencing a bright light, a tunnel, a replay of old memories, and/or out-of-body sensations. For some, these experiences later enhanced their spirituality or personal growth.   Recently, I enjoyed listening to and questioning a university physician who is launching a major multi-site study of cardiac arrest, resuscitation, and near-death experiences. As a dualist (one who assumes mind and body are distinct, though interacting), he is impressed by survivors’ reports of floating up to the ceiling, looking down on the scene below, and observing efforts to revive them. Thus, his study seeks to determine whether such patients can—while presumably separated from their supine body—perceive and later recall images displayed on an elevated, ceiling-facing iPad.   Care to predict the result? My own prediction is based on three lines of research: Parapsychological efforts have failed to confirm out-of-body travel with remote viewing. A mountain of cognitive neuroscience findings link brain and mind. Scientific observations show that brain oxygen deprivation and hallucinogenic drugs can cause similar mystical experiences (complete with the tunnel, beam of light, and so forth). Thus, I expect there will be no replicable evidence of near-death minds viewing events remote from the body. Setting my assumptions and expectations aside, I asked the physician-researcher about some of his assumptions: For how long do you think the mind would survive clinical death? Minutes? Hours? Forever? (His answer, if I understood, was uncertainty.) When resuscitated, the mind would rejoin and travel again with the body, yes? When the patient is wheeled to a new room, the mind rides along? (That assumption was not contested.) What about the Hiroshima victims whose bodies were instantly vaporized? Are you assuming that–for at least a time—their consciousness or mind survived that instant and complete loss of their brain and body? (His clear answer: Yes.) That made me wonder: If a mind could post-date the body, could it also predate it? Or does the body create the mind, which grows with it, but which then, like dandelion seeds, floats away from it?   The brain-mind relationship appeared in another presentation at the same session. A European university philosopher of mind argued that, in addition to the dualist view (which he regards as “dead”) and the reductionist view (Francis Crick: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons”), there is a third option. This is the nonreductive physicalist view—“nonreductive” because the mind has its own integrity and top-down causal properties, and “physicalist” because the mind emerges from the brain and is bound to the brain.   The 20 th century’s final decade was “the decade of the brain,” and the 21 st century’s first decade was “the decade of the mind.” Perhaps we could say that today’s science and philosophy mark this as a decade of the brain-mind relationship? For these scholars, there are miles to go before they enter their final sleep—or should I say until their body evicts their mind?   Addendum for those with religious interests: Two of my friends—British cognitive neuroscientist Malcolm Jeeves and American developmental psychologist Thomas Ludwig—reflect on these and other matters in their just-published book, Psychological Science and Christian Faith. If you think that biblical religion assumes a death-denying dualism (a la Plato’s immortal soul) prepare to be surprised. ... View more

As if cell phone use in cars isn’t bad enough, car manufacturers are building distractions into our automobiles, which I affectionately call Built-in Automotive Driving Distraction Systems TM . Automakers now include more options to allow drivers to use social media, email and text. The technology is also becoming more complicated to use. Cars used to have a few buttons and knobs. Some vehicles now have as many as 50 buttons on the steering wheel and dashboard that are multi-functional. There are touch screens, voice commands, writing pads, heads-up displays on windshields and mirrors and 3-D computer-generated images (Lowy, 2017). In an attempt to save lives, I have been hammering pretty hard on our inability to multi-task in my Intro Psych course. While this topic comes up in greater detail when I cover consciousness, I also embed examples of attention research in my coverage of research methods. Correlation example After I introduce the concept of correlations, I give my students 5 correlations, and ask them to identify the correlation as positive, negative, or no correlation. One of those correlations comes from a 2009 Stanford study reported by NBC News: people who multitask the most are the worst at it (“memory, ability to switch from one task to another, and being able to focus on a task”) (“Multitaskers, pay attention -- if you can,” 2009). Experiment example In talking about experimental design, I discuss David Strayer’s driving simulation research at the University of Utah. His lab’s research is easy for students to understand and the results carry a punch. I give this description to my students and ask them to identify the independent variable and the dependent variables. In an experiment, "[p]articipants drove in a simulator while either talking or not talking on a hands-free cell phone." Those who were talking on a cell phone made more driving errors, such as swerving off the road or into the wrong lane, running a stoplight or stop sign, not stopping for a pedestrian in a crosswalk, than those who were not talking on a cell phone. Even more interestingly, those who were talking on a cellphone rated their driving in the simulator as safer as compared to those who weren't talking on a cellphone. In other words, those talking on the cellphone were less likely to be aware of the driving errors they were making (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Biondi, Behrends, & Moore, 2016).   Class demo When Yana Weinstein of LearningScientists.org posted a link to a blog she wrote on a task switching demo (Weinstein, 2017) to the Society for the Teaching of Psychology Facebook page, I thought, “Now this is what my research methods lecture was missing!” I encourage you to read Weinstein’s original demo once you’re done reading mine.   I randomly divided my class into two groups. To do that I used a random team generator for Excel, but use whatever system you’d like. Weinstein does this demo with a within subjects design which, frankly, makes more sense than my between subjects design, but in my defense I’m also using this demo to help students understand the value of random assignment.   One group of students recited numbers and letters sequentially (1 to 10 and then A to J). The other group recited them interleaved (1 A 2 B 3 C, etc.). In your instructions, be clear that students cannot write down the numbers/letters and just read them. That’s a different task! Students worked in small groups. While one student recited, another student timed them with a cellphone stopwatch app. (You don’t have to know anything about cellphone stopwatch apps. Your students can handle it.) I didn’t bother dividing students into groups by task. In one group, there might have been three students who recited sequentially and a fourth student who recited interleaved. I asked students to write down their times, and then I came around to each group and asked for those times. I just wrote the times on a piece of paper, and displayed the results using a doc camera. Almost everyone in the sequential condition recited the numbers/letters in under 6 seconds. Almost everyone in the interleaved condition took over 13 seconds. In addition to talking about the independent variable (and experimental and control conditions) and the dependent variable, we talked about the value of random assignment. I had no idea who could do these tasks quickly or slowly. If 20% of them could do these tasks quickly, then random assignment would likely create two groups where the percentage of fast-task participants would be the same in each group. Is it possible that all of the fast-task participants ended up in the sequential task condition? Yep. And that’s one reason replication is important. Oh. And when you’re studying or writing a paper, students, this is why you should keep your phone on silent and out of sight. If you keep looking at your phone for social media or text notifications, it’s going to take you a lot longer to finish your studying or finish writing your paper. Perhaps even twice as long. And driving? As you switch back and forth from driving to phone (or from driving to Built-in Automotive Driving Distraction Systems TM ), it’s not going to take you twice as long to get to your destination. You’re traveling at the same speed, but you’re working with half the attention. That increases the chances that you will not get to your destination at all.   A lot of what we cover in Intro Psych is important to the quality of students’ lives. Helping students see our inability to multitask is important in helping our students – and the people they are near them when they drive – stay alive.   References Lowy, J. (2017, October 5). Technology crammed into cars worsens driver distraction. The Seattle Times. Seattle. Retrieved from https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/new-cars-increasingly-crammed-with-distracting-technology-2  Multitaskers, pay attention -- if you can. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32541721/ns/health-mental_health Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Biondi, F., Behrends, A. A., & Moore, S. M. (2016). Cell-phone use diminishes self-awareness of impaired driving. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23 (2), 617–623. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0922-4 Weinstein, Y. (2017). The cost of task switching: A simple yet very powerful demonstration. Retrieved from http://www.learningscientists.org/blog/2017/7/28-1  ... View more

I confess that for many years in my Intro Psych course I didn’t cover sleep or stress. In retrospect, I’m sorry that I didn’t use that opportunity to give those students that information they could use to live better lives. While I can’t go back and change the past, I can make sure that the students I have today – and hopefully, my students’ families and friends – have this information.   The cover story to the March 2017 Monitor on Psychology is on “how smartphones are affecting our health and well-being, and points the way toward taking back control.” The article cites 2015 data from the Pew Research Center that said 72% of U.S. adults have a smartphone (Weir, 2017). In 2016, that number jumped to 77%. If you’re between 18 and 29, 92% of your cohort has one. For those of us 50 to 64, 74% of our peers have one – last year, only 59% of people in this age group owned a smartphone (Smith, 2017). Ask your students to raise their hands if they own a smartphone. After almost all of the hands go up, ask students to take a couple minutes to jot down a few ways in which their phones help them and a few ways in which their phones interfere with their lives. Ask students to share their lists in pairs or small groups, adding other ideas as they come up. Ask groups to identify one student as the recorder. After a few minutes of discussion, starting on one side of the room, ask the recorder from each group to share one benefit their group identified. If it was a benefit other groups had on their list, they should cross it off. List the benefits on the board/computer screen. Repeat this process for the ways smartphones interfere with their lives. One of the interferences cited in the article is lack of sleep – due to blue light disrupting the circadian rhythm, due to getting worked up reading email and text messages before bed, due to waking up to answer phone calls or respond to text messages. Lack of sleep can cause all sorts of problems, including making it harder to cope with stress or poorer school or work performance thus upping stress levels. As a clicker question, ask students: Imagine that you didn’t have your phone for an hour. How freaked out would you be? I’d be fine. A little nervous. Pretty anxious. Totally freaked out. As a research methods booster, describe Nancy Cheever, Larry Rosen, and colleagues’ quasi-experiment (2014) described in the Monitor article. They asked participants to estimate how much time they spent each day on their phones doing various activities, e.g., “send and receive email,” “play video games.” I’m not sure how good any of us are at making such estimates. Given that the range of responses they got was from 1 hour a day to 64.5 (?!) hours a day, I’m even less confident in our ability to make such ratings. (If time allows, give students a few minutes to brainstorm other ways phone usage could be estimated or tracked.) The researchers soldiered on and divided participants into three groups: low smartphone usage (1 to 7 hours a day), moderate usage (7,5 to 16.5 hours a day), and heavy usage (17 or more hours a day). And then the researchers took away the participants’ phones. Participants completed the State/Trait Anxiety Inventory after 10 minutes, after 35 minutes, and after 60 minutes. The low usage participants were fine the entire time. The moderate users were fine after 10 minutes, but by 35 minutes they were a little anxious, and they were still just as anxious after an hour. The high users though were already anxious by the 10-minute mark, and their anxiety continued to climb through 35 minutes and was even higher by 60 minutes. Ask students to take a look at the benefits and interference lists you have on the board/screen, and invite students to hypothesize why the heavy smartphone users would be so freaked out.   Part of what may be driving that anxiety is FOMO – a fear of missing out. “What are my friends texting me? Are they thinking I’m mad at them because I’m not responding? What’s happening on Facebook? On Instagram? On Twitter? On Snapchat?” That gives you a good opportunity to revisit operant conditioning. The Monitor article notes that checking one’s phone provides instant reinforcement. If you check your phone to relieve anxiety, phone-checking is negatively reinforced. If you check your phone to see a loving text message from your sweetie, then your phone-checking is positively reinforced. The stress chapter in your Intro Psych textbook likely talks about the importance of feeling like we have control over our lives. Have our smartphones taken over control? Notifications tell us to look now (discriminative stimulus – “If you look now, I’ll reinforce your looking behavior with a new text message, information about who liked your most recent Facebook status update, or that you have a new life in that game that you started playing”). Can we resist the buzz, the blinking lights, the special text notification sound we assigned to our new love? Constantly ducking into our phones takes time and cognitive energy. If we’re reading, writing, or studying, every time we check the latest buzz, we take our minds away from what we’re doing. When we are done with the phone, it takes time to figure out what we had been doing and refocus… only for another buzz to take us away. While this may interfere with our productivity, greatly increasing how long it takes to do what we need to do, at least it’s not going to kill us. But when we engage in exactly that same behavior when driving, it may very well kill us or cause us to kill someone else. “A newly released survey shows that cell phone use is the greatest cause of distracted driving in Washington state and that fatalities from distracted driving have increased dramatically over a one-year period” (KOMO Staff, 2017). This is not just a Washington state problem. “After steady declines over the last four decades, highway fatalities last year [2015] recorded the largest annual percentage increase in 50 years. And the numbers so far this year are even worse. In the first six months of 2016, highway deaths jumped 10.4 percent to 17,775, from the comparable period of 2015” (Boudette, 2016). Also, as a bonus, if a driver is sleep deprived because of the phone interrupting their sleep, they don’t need to check a phone while driving to get killed. They can fall asleep while driving. Since we know that dramatic stories or footage are a more powerful persuasive tool than mere statistics, here are some car crashes. The view out the car window is on the left, and the view of the driver is on the right. Point out to students how little time it takes for a crash to happen. Video Link : 1947 While the video shows drivers looking at their phones instead of the road, the distracted driving research makes it clear that mentally doing something else while driving, like talking on the phone, is just as dangerous. If your mind is not on driving, you’re at risk of crashing. Crashing. Not having an accident, but crashing. An accident makes it sound like something that could not be avoided, after all, accidents happen. Crashes, however, can be avoided. This change in terminology, recommended by the National Traffic Safety Administration, is to help drivers take more responsibility for the havoc they can cause (Richel, 2016). I don’t know that there are any data to support this, but here’s a blog post by a linguist that explains why it should make a difference. Conclude this activity by asking students to take a minute to reflect on what they can do to regain control from their phones. Ask students to share in pairs or small groups, then ask volunteers to share some of their suggestions. Here are seven suggestions from the Monitor on Psychology article. “Make choices.” Decide what you are going to use your phone for. I know several people who have uninstalled the Facebook app from their phones specifically because it was sucking up too much of their time. “Retrain yourself.” Gradually wean yourself off habitual phone-checking. Don’t look at it first thing in the morning or the last thing at night. “Set expectations.” Let everyone know that you’re not going to respond to their text message or email immediately. Assure them that it’s about you, not about them. “Silence notifications.” If you don’t need to know NOW, turn off the notifications. Push notifications for my work email are turned off between 6pm and 8am and all day on the weekend. I made that change the night I was at a play and during intermission I was reading work email. I thought, “What am I doing?!” I changed the notifications then and there. “Protect sleep.” My phone automatically sets itself to silent between 9pm and 8am. When I still couldn’t resist the urge to check it when I woke up in the middle of the night, I started leaving it in a different room. “Be active.” When on social media, participate. That’s more likely to make us feel connected to others. “And, of course, don’t text/email/call and drive.” If you can’t stay off your phone, lock it in the trunk. References Boudette, N. E. (2016, November 15). Biggest spike in traffic deaths in 50 years? Blame apps. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/business/tech-distractions-blamed-for-rise-in-traffic-fatalities.html Cheever, N. A., Rosen, L. D., Carrier, L. M., & Chavez, A. (2014). Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 290-297. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.002 KOMO Staff. (2017, February 13). New survey: Distracted driving deaths up 32 percent; cell phone use a key factor. Retrieved from http://komonews.com/news/local/new-survey-distracted-driving-deaths-up-32-percent-cell-phone-use-blamed Richtel, M. (2016, May 22). It's no accident: Advocates want to speak of car 'crashes' instead. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/science/its-no-accident-advocates-want-to-speak-of-car-crashes-instead.html Smith, A. (2017, January 12). Record shares of Americans now own smartphones, have home broadband. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/12/evolution-of-technology Weir, K. (2017, March). (Dis)Connected. APA Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/03/cover-disconnected.aspx ... View more

A couple weeks ago we were walking our dogs past our neighbor’s house when we noticed that there was a smashed car parked out front. We asked our neighbor what happened. “My son fell asleep. He’s okay, and fortunately it was a single-car crash.” For years I didn’t cover sleep in Intro Psych. And then a colleague’s teenage son fell asleep while driving, crossed the center line, and hit a semi head-on. He was killed instantly. The next time I taught Intro Psych, I covered sleep. And I have ever since. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has released their latest report, Acute Sleep Deprivation and Risk of Motor Vehicle Crash Involvement (2016). Here are some clicker questions to get your students thinking about the scope of the problem driving while drowsy before launching into your coverage of sleep. (Answers are at the bottom.) What percentage “of U.S. adults usually sleep for less than 7 hours daily”? Less than 10% 10% to 20% 21% to 30 % 30% to 40% “[D]rivers who reported having slept for less than 4 hours in the past 24 hours had an estimated ________ times the odds of having contributed to the crash in which they were involved, compared with drivers who reported having slept for 7 or more hours in the past 24 hours.” 11.5 4.3 1.9 1.3 What are the odds that someone with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level of 0.08 (legal limit in all U.S. states) will be in a crash as compared to someone with a BAC of 0.0? 6 to 7.8 3 to 6.5 0 to 5.2 7 to 3.9 The authors of this report acknowledge a number of limitations. “Possibly the most significant limitation of the study was that crashes that occurred between midnight and 6 AM” were not included in the dataset used in this study. Ask students to consider what impact including that data could have on the results. Interestingly, “drivers involved crashes in the first and last hours of data collection each day (i.e., 6:00 – 6:59 AM and 11:00 – 11:59 PM) reported having slept for an average of one full hour less in the past 24 hours than did drivers involved in crashes during the remainder of the day.” For more research and recent statistics, check out the Governors Highway Safety Administration report, Wake Up Call! Understanding Drowsy Driving and What States Can Do (2016). ANSWERS D. 35% (That is “including 12% who report usually sleeping for 5 hours or less.”) A. 11.5. Drivers that slept between 4 and 5 hours were 4.3 times as likely to crash. Drivers that slept between 5 and 6 hours were 1.9 times as likely to crash. And drivers that slept between 6 and 7 hours were 1.3 times as likely to crash. D. 2.7 to 3.9. That’s approximately equivalent to sleeping between 4 and 5 hours. In other words, driving on less than 5 hours of sleep is about the same as driving with a BAC of 0.08. ... View more

Originally posted on May 20, 2014. Three years ago, I gained a new appreciation of consciousness. My mom had an accident that caused her brain to bleed. It seemed to rip away her consciousness. As I slept next to her bed before she died, I wondered, “Is she conscious of what’s happening?” New research suggests that the brain can give us a clue. Prior to this research, you had limited options to know if someone had consciousness. You could ask them. That’s easy. But what about those cases, like my mom’s, when a person hasn’t experienced brain death but is still unresponsive? To find out, researchers scanned the brain of a woman who was in a vegetative state. They asked her to imagine playing tennis, along with several other activities. The results, published in Science, made a big splash. Although the woman couldn’t answer the questions, her brain did. When she imagined playing tennis, her brain reacted by increasing blood flow to the motor cortex. She was immobile, but her brain acted as if she was playing on Wimbledon’s Centre Court. To watch a wonderful video of the researcher leading this effort, click here. It might change the way you think about consciousness. I know it helped me. ... View more

Originally posted on June 19, 2014. We’ve all experienced the pleasure and subsequent pain of mindless eating. Just sit in front of the TV, open a bag of chips, and watch your favorite show. Now do the same thing with the TV off. In which situation did you eat more? Mindless eating made Brian Wansink a household name. This guy’s research oozes coolness. Need proof? Just watch this video to see how he made people guzzle quarts (yes, quarts!) of soup by having them spoon it out of a bottomless bowl. It won him the 2007 Ig Nobel Prize. If mindless eating makes us unhealthy, would mindful eating make us healthier? According to a recent study, Yes. People who practiced mindful eating, compared those who did not, ate healthier foods and had healthier weights. At your next meal, don’t agonize over every bite. But also avoid putting your brain on cruise control. A healthy awareness and attention to the food we eat can motivate use to use the highest quality food to fuel our brains and bodies. ... View more

Originally posted on August 28, 2014. When your friend tells you about her terrific first date, you will eventually ask the question. You might stall by inquiring about the food she ate, the jokes he told, and the outfit she wore. Eventually, you’ll ask: Is he cute? Recent research suggests that you’ll know how she arrived at her answer.  An in-depth analysis of 1,000 facial images identified three main ingredients of attractiveness: Approachability, or how friendly a person seems. A large mouth, wide nose, and curvy bottom lip were some of the strongest predictors of approachability. Youthful-attractiveness. Here, the eyes have it. To seem youthful, have large eyes. You should also avoid sporting a moustache or beard. Dominance. Looking dominant relates to having angular cheeks, large eyebrows, and slightly dark skin. These are some of the strongest predictors of each attractiveness ingredient. Of course, they don’t tell you much about people’s sense of humor, clothing style, or hobbies. For that, you’ll have to take the plunge and actually meet them. She might have large eyes and a curvy bottom lip, but would you want to date someone who never laughed at your jokes? I doubt it. Or what about an angular-cheeked, naturally tan man who always turns heads but also is profoundly dull and shallow? Maybe give him a fake phone number when he asks for yours. Attractiveness matters, especially during the initial passionate stages of a relationship. But there are many ingredients that are far more important than attractiveness when selecting a mate. Trust is key. Think about it: Would you rather date an attractive compulsive liar, or a less attractive person who always tells the truth? Self-control also fosters relationship success. Highly self-controlled people, compared with their sluggardly counterparts, are more forgiving, generous, and less aggressive. So, it’s natural to wonder whether your friend’s date is cute. You might not ask whether he has a large mouth, angular cheeks, or big eyes. But if she says, “Yes, he’s gorgeous,” you can be confident that he received an extra helping of some of these attractiveness ingredients. ... View more

Originally posted on May 12, 2014. Sleep consumes time we could spend foraging and it exposes us to predators.  It’s a waste and a risk.  So why do humans sleep?  Why didn’t nature design us for continual activity and vigilance? In the October 18, 2013 Science, researchers offer an answer:  sleep enables house cleaning.  Studies of mice show that sleep sweeps the brain of toxic metabolic waste products. Ergo, at the day’s end we can say to our loved ones:  Good night.  Sleep tidy. ... View more

Originally posted on July 1, 2014. In all of recent psychological science, there has been, to my mind, no more provocative studies those by Benjamin Libet.  His experiments have seemingly shown that when we move our wrist at will, we consciously experience the decision to move it about 0.2 seconds before the actual movement. No surprise there. But what startled me was his reporting that our brain waves jump about 0.35 seconds before we consciously perceive our decision to move! This “readiness potential” has enabled researchers (using fMRI brain scans) to predict participants’ decisions to press a button with their left or right finger. The startling conclusion: Consciousness sometimes appears to arrive late to the decision-making party. And so it has also seemed in Michael Gazzaniga’s reports of split-brain patients who readily confabulate (make up and believe) plausible but incorrect explanations for their induced actions. If Gazzinga instructs a patient’s right brain to “Walk,” the patient’s unaware left hemisphere will improvise an explanation for walking: “I’m going into the house to get a Coke.”  The conscious left brain is the brain’s public relations system—its explanation-constructing “interpreter.” So, do Libet’s and Gazzaniga’s observations destroy the concept of free will?  Does our brain really make decisions before our conscious mind knows about them?  Do we fly through life on autopilot?  Are we (our conscious minds) mere riders on a wild beast? Not so fast.  Stanislas Dehaene and his colleagues report that brain activity continuously ebbs and flows, regardless of whether a decision is made and executed.  The actual decision to move, they observe, occurs when the brain activity crosses a threshold, which happens to coincide with the average “time of awareness of intention to move” (about 0.15 second before the movement).  In their view, the mind’s decision and the brain’s activity, like a computer’s problem solving and its electronic activity, are parallel and virtually simultaneous. The late neuroscientist Donald MacKay offered a seemingly similar idea:  “When I am thinking, my brain activity reflects what I am thinking, as [computer’s] activity reflects the equation it is solving.”  The mind and brain activities are yoked (no brain, no mind), he argued, but are complementary and conceptually distinct.  As my colleague Tom Ludwig has noted, MacKay’s view—that mental events are embodied in but not identical to brain events—is a third alternative to both dualism and materialism (physicalism). ... View more